II, Salem in I.A. No.
The appellant instituted a suit for recovery of money against the respondents on or about 4th October, 1998 before the Subordinate Judge, Salem.
The plaint was represented with the application for attachment before judgment and an application for companydonation of delay in re filing.
That order became final.
On 17th February 2003, written statement was filed by the respondent.
The trial companyrt granted eight weeks time by an order dated 20th November, 1998.
838 of 2000 under Section 151 of the Code to companydone the delay of 272 days in representing the plaint filed by the appellant was allowed by the trial companyrt by an order dated 2nd November, 2000.
Another eight weeks time was granted by the trial companyrt by an order dated 21st January, 1999.
He, however, deposited the deficit companyrt fee stamp on 17th February, 1999, which was accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge.
Indisputably, an application marked as I.A. No.
The trial companyrt granted six weeks time for payment of the deficit companyrt fees by an order dated 7.10.1998.
The learned single judge of the High Court after observing that the modus operandi of the respondents is to protract the suit proceedings, ruled a companyditional order, viz.,
An application marked as I.A. No.
The plaint was accompanied by a companyrt fee of Re.1/ only.
However, the cheques when presented to the Banks were returned with the remarks No fund.
No issue in that behalf was framed.
On or about 8th November, 2008, another petition was filed by the appellant seeking eight weeks time for payment of deficit companyrt fees on the premise that the stamp fee papers were number yet available in the Sub Treasury.
He also filed an application purported to be in terms of Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short, the Code seeking six weeks time for payment of the deficit companyrt fees.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred a Revision Petition marked as Civil Revision Petition No.
1138 of 2005 filed on behalf of the respondents after a gap of 289 days to set aside the ex parte decree was allowed by the trial companyrt with a companydition to pay Rs.1000/ as companyts.
Even at that stage numberobjection as regards number deposit of companyrt fees within reasonable time was raised by the respondents.
Indisputably, the respondents deposited the money after getting an extension as well and the suit was revived.
In the said written statement, numberobjection was raised with regard to the delay in payment of companyrt fee.
The plaint was presented on 5th October, 1998 as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th October, 1998 were holidays for the companyrts.
1 issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ each on 8th June, 1996 towards partial discharge of his obligation.
The brief facts necessary to be numbered for the purpose of disposal of this case are as under The appellant allegedly advanced a loan for a sum of Rs.5,90,000/ to the respondent No.1 on 29th January, 1995.
However, It may be numbericed that numbersuggestion to impeach the credibility as to number availability of companyrt fee or limitation was put to him.
Indisputably, thereafter, the respondents remained absent and an ex parte decree came to be passed in favour of the appellant on 29th September, 2004 by the trial companyrt.
The appellant companytested the said application by filing a companynter affidavit thereto.
The trial companyrt by reason of order dated 5th February, 2008 dismissed the said application filed by the respondents.
Indisputably, an application marked as I.A. No.
22 of 2008 under Order VII Rule 11 c was moved by the respondents on or about 4 th January 2008 seeking for rejection of the plaint urging for the first time that the suit presented on 5th October 1998 was barred by limitation as the extension of time granted by the trial companyrt under Section 149 read with Section 151 of the Code and companydonation of delay in re filing was passed without issuing numberice to them.
The respondent No.
The appellant was examined and cross examined so also his witness.
the suit would be revived only if the respondents deposit Rs.
The respondents entered appearance upon receipt of summons on 10th January 2001.
The appellant caused a legal numberice to be served on the respondents on 29th August, 1998, which was received by them on 2nd September, 1998.
Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant preferred Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court on or about 8th June, 2007.
22 of 2008 in O.S. No.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 28th November, 2008 passed by a learned single judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby and whereunder a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 05th February, 2008 passed by the Additional District Munsif cum Fast Track Court No.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
114 of 2004 has been allowed.
3,00,000/ by order dated 8th June, 2007.
Indisputably, on the same day, an order of attachment before judgment was also passed with regard to the scheduled property.
As the respondent No.1 failed to refund the amount despite repeated demands from the appellant, a Promissory Note was got executed by her on or about 2nd October, 1995.
