Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

37. I do not agree with the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the defendant that the deficient court fees which has been paid by the plaintiffs though on 22.01.2010 cannot be taken cognizance of. I do not feel that there has to be necessarily an application for enlargement of time for payment of court fees in each and every case especially the one which is like the present one where on account of a bona fide mistake of a counsel, a party has paid the deficient court fees though not in full measure but in substantial measure. Reliance can be placed on Mahanth Ram Das's case AIR 1961 SC 882, P.K.Palanisamy Vs. N.Arumughan & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 173 and Indian Statistical Institute Vs. M/s Associate Builder and Ors. 1978 (1) SCC 483. The Courts as well as the parties are human and there is a possibility that as a human being a party may commit an error. The question which is to be considered is whether there was any malafide intention in not depositing the full court fees, if the answer to this question is in affirmative only then the discretion need not be exercised by the Court in favour of party whose intentions are not bonafide and are actuated with a clear intention to prolong the trial or to seek the access to the Court without discharging the obligations warranted by a statute. In the instant case, I feel that there was no such intention on the part of the plaintiffs who had actually paid a substantial amount of court fees to the tune of Rs.1,74,800/- and it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the counsel in calculating the court fees and therefore, malafide or ill motive may be attributed to such an error because it is ultimately the humans who commit an error. It is also my considered view that even though no application was filed by the plaintiffs seeking enlargement of time under Section 149 of CPC yet the Court on the facts of the present case in exercise of its power u/S 149 CPC is well within its power to condone such delay in filing the deficient court fees. In this regard reliance can be placed on Mandadi Krishna Reddy‟s case. Further the suit filed for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, damages/rendition of account and delivery etc. against the defendant is pending for the last more than five years and the deficient court fees was paid in substantial measure within the permissible time. The balance amount of deficient court fees could not be paid earlier on account of bonafide human error of the counsel for the plaintiff as well as on account of failure on the part of the registry to point out the deficiency.