Under section 149 of CPC at its discretion the Court may at any stage allow a person to pay the Court fee which was not initially paid when the document was presented. So to say, the defect of paying deficient Court fee can be allowed to be rectified by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. Payment of the Court fee falling short of prescribed amount is a curable defect at the discretion of the Court.

2) SC has held the Court is required to exercise its judicial discretion keeping the facts and circumstances in each case and not automatically for mere asking that indulgence be shown to the party to make good the deficit Court fee

3) in case the deficit court is not paid inspite of court orders for 2 years plaint can be rejected

4) Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the plaint shall be rejected if the requisite Court fee is not paid within the time fixed by the Court. Under proviso to Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII, the Court shall not extend the time for payment of Court fee unless reasons are recorded and there are satisfactory reasons to the effect that the plaintiff was prevented by a cause of an exceptional nature from paying the Court fee.

tajendra Singh ghambir v/s Gurpeet Singh SC 2014

R.M Lodha, C.J— Leave granted. The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit for declaration and injunction. It is not in dispute that adequate court fee in that regard was paid by the plaintiffs. Later on, reliefs were amended and prayers for compensation and utilisation were also made. However, on the amended valuation, there was deficiency in payment of court fee but to make up such deficiency, no order was passed by the trial court.

2. The present Respondents 1 and 2 (the defendants in the suit) preferred first appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun. In the first appeal, an objection regarding deficit court fee was raised by the defendants. The first appellate court, however, observed that while granting amendment in the plaint, the trial court did not prescribe any time-limit in connection with the payment of court fee and even no objection was raised by the defendants in that regard. The aspect of deficit court fee came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the time of preparation of decree only and, therefore, an opportunity deserved to be granted to the plaintiffs to make up the deficit court fee in the interest of justice.

3. Against this order of the first appellate court, Respondents 1 and 2 filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in para 7 of the impugned order1 held as under: (SCC OnLine Utt)

“7. In the case in hand, after amendment in the valuation clause of the plaint, it was duty of the plaintiffs to make good the deficiency in the court fee. Deficiency of the court fee could be made good in the trial court only. Perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Court Fees Act transpires that no plaint shall be acted upon, unless deficiencies in the court fee are made good. The Court Fees Act further provides that in no case, the judgment shall be delivered unless the deficiency in court fee has been made good. Section 149 CPC though gives power to the Court to allow the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee but such power is given to the Court before the disposal of suit. Thus, permission for payment of additional court fee or for making good the deficiency in court fee could only be granted during the pendency of suit. In absence of payment of sufficient court fee the judgment could not be delivered. Deficiency of court fee in respect of plaint cannot be made good during the appellate stage. Such permission could not be granted by the appellate court under Section 151 CPC. In case such permission is permitted to the parties, then it would not only be per se illegal but would also be a bad precedent since all litigants would adopt this method of paying court fee only after obtaining relief from the trial court, before the appellate court. I have no hesitation to say that decision-making process of Additional District Judge/FTC II, Dehradun is per se vitiated and cannot be appreciated. He has exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity and order passed by him deserves to be set aside.”

Dear Client,

Suit cannot be rejected by trial courts for non-payment of court fee alone, same ruled by SC if the financial and economic condition of party is dilapidated, party deserved waiver of court fee so that he could contest his claim on merit which involved his substantive right but for this party have to approach the jurisdictional district legal service authority and Taluk Legal Services Committee seeking legal aid for approval of court fee.

IF financial condition of party is sound and is evading court fees, than suit is liable to be dismissed.

A. Nawab John & Ors vs V. N. Subramaniyam on 3 July, 2012

Therefore, from the language of Section 149 CPC it follows that when a plaint is presented to a Court without the payment of appropriate court fee payable thereon, undoubtedly the Court has the authority to call upon the plaintiff to make payment of the necessary court fee. Such an authority of the Court can be exercised at any stage of the suit. It, therefore, appears to us that any amount of lapse of time does not fetter the authority of the Court to direct the payment of such deficit court fee. As a logical corollary, even the plaintiff cannot be said to be barred from paying the deficit court fee because of the lapse of time.

Suit above arises out of a contested Letter for Probate of a disputed will Courtfeesdecided from fair value fixed by Govt. of lands in will& admitted by LOP mover/ Petitioner)/ Plaintiff

It is well settled that the judicial discretion is required to be exercised in accordance with the settled principles of law. It must not be exercised in a manner to confer an unfair advantage on one of the parties to the litigation. In a case where the plaint is filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law but with deficit court fee and the plaintiff seeks to make good the deficit of the court fee beyond the period of limitation, the Court, though has discretion under Section 149 CPC, must scrutinise the explanation offered for the delayed payment of the deficit court fee carefully because exercise of such discretion would certainly have some bearing on the rights and obligations of the defendants or persons claiming through the defendants. (The case on hand is a classic example of such a situation.) It necessarily follows from the above that Section 149 CPC does not confer an absolute right in favour of a plaintiff to pay the court fee as and when it pleases the plaintiff. It only enables a plaintiff to seek the indulgence of the Court to permit the payment of court fee at a point of time later than the presentation of the plaint. The exercise of the discretion by the Court is conditional upon the satisfaction of the Court that the plaintiff offered a legally acceptable explanation for not paying the court fee within the period of limitation.