Ijm Corporation Berhad vs M/S Lakshmi Sai Constructions Company

Non-Reportable
2026 INSC 777
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 9775 of 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.647 of 2023)
IJM Corporation Berhad
…. Appellant
Versus
M/s Lakshmi Sai Constructions Company and Anr.
…. Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order which
affirmed the order of the Trial Court permitting the defendant to
pay court fees on a counter claim with a delay of 4 years and that
too after the entire evidence in the suit was closed.
3. We heard Mr. Nishanth Patil, learned AoR appearing for
the appellant and Mr. P. Mohith Rao, learned AoR appearing for
the respondents.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent referred to Section
149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the ‘CPC’) and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.07.31
15:30:31 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 5
CA@ SLP (C) No. 647 of 2023

specifically relied on the judgment in
A. Nawab John & Ors v.
1
VN Subramaniyam .
5. In the above case, admittedly when the written statement
was filed, there was a counter claim raised on 13.10.2015, which
was returned on 02.11.2015 with a direction to file the written
statement with the counter claim shown separately. The defense
resubmitted it on 29.03.2016, requesting the Court to accept the
written statement as they were unable to pay the court fees. The
order passed by the Court is seen at Annexure P5. Though not
happily worded, the written statement alone was taken on
record. The counter claim thus did not exist. Much later, on
05.03.2020, an application was filed, seeking permission to
deposit the court fees payable on the counter claim within seven
days with notice to the other side. The Trial Court permitted it on
the same day. The court fees were paid on 09.03.2020 as per the
memo dated 12.03.2020. A revision was preferred, challenging
the order also on the ground that despite seeking time to file a
counter to the application, the matter was disposed of without
affording the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
1
6. A. Nawab John was a case in which a suit for specific
performance was filed in which the defendant was set ex parte .
1
(2012) 7 SCC 738
Page 2 of 5
CA@ SLP (C) No. 647 of 2023

However, on the very same date, the sole respondent before this
Court had filed an intervention application on the ground that he
had purchased the suit schedule property. He raised a
contention under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC that the court fees
paid was beyond the time provided by Court, and hence, the
plaint has to be rejected.
7. This Court specifically dealt with Section 149 of the CPC
and held that it dealt with every document with respect to which
court fees are required to be paid under the appropriate law and,
therefore, when a plaint is presented to a Court without payment
of appropriate court fees, undoubtedly the Court has the
authority to call upon the plaintiff to make payment of the
necessary court fees within a time stipulated. Such an authority
of the Court can be exercised at any stage of the suit, was the
finding.
8. No doubt, the defendant could have deposited the court
fees, with leave of the Court at any stage, if the counter claim
was available on record. In the present case, the defendant
while resubmitting the written statement, through an application
requested only for the written statement to be taken on record
since they did not have the wherewithal to pay the court fese.
This was specifically noticed in Annexure P5 order passed by
Page 3 of 5
CA@ SLP (C) No. 647 of 2023

the Court. Hence, there was no counter claim on record, though
it may have been mentioned in the written statement.
9. Ideally, the defendant should have filed an application to
either raise a counter claim or accept the counter claim already
recited in the written statement and sought for payment of court
fees. Even this procedure could not have been adopted in this
case, since the trial had virtually concluded. We see from the
order of the High Court that the evidence of the plaintiff was
closed on 24.07.2019 and the evidence of PW1 was closed on
29.01.2020 after which the I.A. seeking permission to pay the
court fees was filed on 05.03.2020. When the counter claim was
not on record, the plaintiff necessarily would not have adduced
evidence to controvert the same.
10. After the trial was concluded, an amendment to the written
statement, incorporating a counter claim; which was necessary
as we noticed hereinabove, would have been difficult. Order VI
Rule 17 of the CPC would have restricted such amendment, since
though Rule 17 provides for amendment of pleadings at any
stage of the proceedings with leave of the Court, the proviso
permits such amendments after the trial has commenced, only in
circumstances where the Court comes to the conclusion that
despite due diligence the party was prevented from raising the
Page 4 of 5
CA@ SLP (C) No. 647 of 2023

matter before commencement of the trial. There is no such
ground pleaded by the defendant and the only ground is of lack
of financial capacity which too, in any event has to be pleaded
and proved when amendment is sought.
11. In the present case, the trial itself had concluded. We find
absolutely no reason to sustain the order passed by the High
Court, affirming the order of the Trial Court. The Suit shall be
adjudicated without the counter claim.
12. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 28, 2026.
Page 5 of 5
CA@ SLP (C) No. 647 of 2023