Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 924 (AP)

Kamatham Venkateswarlu v. N. Venkateswara Rao

2014-07-24

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2014
Order: 1. This revision is directed against the order, dated 13.03.2014, passed in I.A. No. 163 of 2013 in CFR No.1382 of 2013, by the Senior Civil judge, Nandikotkuru, whereby and whereunder the lower Court dismissed the petition filed to condone the delay in paying the Court fees. 2. The petitioner herein filed the suit on 04.09.2013 with deficit court fees. He filed a petition seeking permission to grant 30 days time to pay deficit court fee. The lower Court granted time till 03.10.2013 to pay the deficit court fee. Admittedly, there was Samaikyandra movement and the Court staff participated in the said movement from 19.08.2013 to 20.10.2013. The plaint was returned on 22.10.2013. The petitioner paid the deficit court fee on 29.10.2013. However, the lower Court, relying on the amended provisions of Section 148 CPC that the maximum time is only 30 days for enlargement of time, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present CRP. 3. Admittedly, the plaint was returned on 22.10.2013. The petitioner cannot be held responsible till 22.10.2013 because the plaint was not returned. In the circumstances, 30 days period has to be counted from 22.10.2013 and the payment of deficit court fee is deemed to have been paid within the period of 30 days. It has to be seen that no party shall be put to any inconvenience or the rights of a party should not be defeated by the action of the Court. Even if the Court staff has participated in Samaikyandra movement the petitioner is not responsible for the same. It was beyond the control of the petitioner. Therefore, that period has to be excluded from counting the total period of 30 days. Action of staff amounts to the action of the Court. Because the ultimate responsibility lies on the Court, it is the duty of the Court to see that the Court functions regularly. If for any reason the Court is not functioning, the parties cannot be held responsible. Moreover, mere technicalities should not come in the way of doing ultimate justice. The Court has every right to extend the prescribed period if the applicant satisfies the Court that he has sufficient cause for not presenting the suit which includes paying the deficit court fee. Moreover, mere technicalities should not come in the way of doing ultimate justice. The Court has every right to extend the prescribed period if the applicant satisfies the Court that he has sufficient cause for not presenting the suit which includes paying the deficit court fee. Under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in computing the period of limitation the time requisite for obtaining certified copies etc., has to be excluded. So, the above situation empowers the Court to exclude the time in certain specific circumstances. Of course, the strike of employees is not specifically mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1963, probably there were no such circumstance on the date when the said Act came into force. Be that as it may, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the period has to be counted only from the date of return of plaint i.e., from 20.10.2013 and the payment of deficit court fee is within limitation. 4. Accordingly, the CRP is allowed at the admission stage and the impugned order is set aside. However, in the circumstances, no costs. 5. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.