Beyond limitation, deficit court fee requires a Section 149 application, notice, and specific judicial order.

The plaintiff filed a money suit on a promissory note on 7 December 2015, before the limitation period expired, paying only ₹1,001 in court fee.

On 22 December 2015, the plaint was returned with a direction to pay the deficit court fee of ₹1,21,340 within two weeks.

The deficit was paid on 8 February 2016, and the plaint was represented the next day with an application to condone the 34-day delay in representation.

That application was allowed, and the suit was taken on file.

The defendant later sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC, contending that no application under Section 149 CPC had been filed to extend time for payment of the deficit court fee.

The trial court dismissed that application, prompting this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether a plaintiff who pays the deficit court fee after the limitation period must seek an extension of time under Section 149 CPC before the plaint can be accepted.

Whether allowing an application to condone delay in representing the plaint amounts to extending time for payment of the deficit court fee under Section 149 CPC.

Section 149 CPC gives the court discretion to permit payment of a deficient court fee after the plaint is presented, but does not give the plaintiff an unconditional right to pay it at any time; where payment is made after limitation, the court must scrutinise the explanation for delay and exercise its discretion judicially (A. Nawab John v. V.N. Subramaniyam).

Under the procedure stated by the Division Bench in K. Natarajan v. P.K. Rajasekaran, where the deficit is paid beyond limitation, the defendant must ordinarily be heard before time is extended.

The court must pass a specific order on the Section 149 request; an order condoning delay in representation alone does not extend time for payment of the deficit court fee.

The relevant provisions are Section 149 CPC, Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

The plaint was filed within limitation, but the substantial deficit court fee was paid only after limitation had expired and after the time initially granted by the court had ended.

The plaintiff’s application sought only condonation of delay in representation; it did not seek relief under Section 149 CPC.

Nor did the order allowing that application contain a specific extension of time for payment of the deficit fee.

The High Court held that the trial court therefore erred in treating a Section 149 application as optional and in relying on the absence of mala fides to dismiss the defendant’s application.

The representation order could not substitute for the required Section 149 determination.

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the trial court’s order dismissing the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.