THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1226 of 2013 Date: 16-07-2014 Between :-
Ediga Sunkanna.
… Petitioner.
And Gangarapu Ramanaidu.
… Respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner s : Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy Counsel for respondent : -NA-
This Court made the following :-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1226 of 2013 ORDER:
This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.11-07- 2012 in I.A.No.35 of 2012 in O.S.No.Nil of 2012 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal.
2. The petitioner is plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed on 27-08-2004 by plaintiff without paying the full Court Fee. The plaint was returned to petitioner to pay the deficit Court Fee by granting him time till 12-09-2004. The plaint was not represented within that time with deficit Court Fee.
3. On 09-02-2012, 7½ years after the expiry of time fixed for payment of the Court Fee, the petitioner filed I.A.No.35 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 2703 days for payment of deficit Court Fee and to represent the plaint with Court fee apart from compliance with other objections raised.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it is stated that the petitioner had suffered a paralytic attack on 10-09-2004, for which he underwent ayurvedic treatment at Gundlapalli village, Nandyal; he was bed ridden and unable to speak and move; and he could not meet his advocate to pay the entire court fee and represent the plaint after complying with the objections. He also contended that previous week he recovered from his ill-health, met his advocate and then came to know that the plaint was returned. He further contended that since he could not pay the deficit court fee for the reasons beyond his control, the delay of 2703 days in representing the plaint may be condoned.
5. By order dt.11-07-2012, the said I.A. was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had filed no evidence to prove the fact he suffered a paralytic stroke and could not move from bed.
6. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.
7. Heard Sri N.Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the suit was filed for recovery of amount from respondent on 27-08-2004 and on account of petitioner’s suffering from paralytic stroke, he could not pay the deficit court fee before 12-09-2004. He further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the said delay is condoned.
9. There is no evidence placed before the trial Court to prove that petitioner had suffered a paralytic stroke and was unable to speak or move till 09-02-2012. In the absence of any such evidence, it has to be held that the petitioner is negligent in filing the suit without paying appropriate court fee and in not representing the plaint with correct court fee before 12-09-2004. If such inordinate delay of 2703 days in representing the plaint with full court fee is now condoned, grave and irreparable loss would be caused to the respondent.
10. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
11. Miscellaneous applications pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 16-07-2014 vsv