Madras High Court
Civil Procedure and EvidenceCivil Law

Courts May Permit Payment of Deficit Court Fees at Any Stage Under Section 149 CPC.

S. Sheik Jaffar (Died)1. Bathul Bee vs K.S. Akila Begum

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 05, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Courts May Permit Payment of Deficit Court Fees at Any Stage Under Section 149 CPC.. S. Sheik Jaffar (Died)1. Bathul Bee vs K.S. Akila Begum. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S. No. 84 of 2011 seeking declaration and mandatory injunction, applied at the final-hearing stage for leave to pay a court-fee deficit of ₹95,711.50.

Source reference: paras. 1, 3; pp. 4–5

The trial court dismissed the application because the plaintiffs had not adequately explained the delay, despite the defendants’ objection in their written statement.

Source reference: paras. 1, 3; pp. 4–5

The plaintiffs challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Source reference: paras. 1, 3; pp. 4–5
02

Issues

1. Whether the trial court ought to have exercised its discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to permit payment of the deficit court fee at the final-hearing stage.

Source reference: paras. 3–6; pp. 5–6

2. Whether permitting payment of the deficit court fee determined by the plaintiffs would prevent the defendants from disputing the suit’s valuation or the adequacy of the fee.

Source reference: paras. 5–6; p. 6
03

Law Applied

Section 149 CPC gives the court discretion to permit payment of a deficit court fee, and that discretion may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings.

Source reference: para. 4; p. 5

The Court treated payment of court fees as a matter between the court and the plaintiffs and considered whether permitting payment would prejudice the defendants.

Source reference: paras. 4, 6; pp. 5–6

The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was invoked to challenge the trial court’s order.

Source reference: p. 4
04

Reasoning

The High Court considered that the plaintiffs were willing to pay the claimed deficit and that permitting payment would not, by itself, cause grave prejudice to the defendants.

Source reference: paras. 4–6; pp. 5–6

It therefore held that the trial court should have exercised its discretion under Section 149 CPC, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ delay.

Source reference: paras. 4–6; pp. 5–6

However, the defendants’ contention that the fee was incorrectly calculated because it was not based on market value remained open for consideration by the trial court on its merits; allowing payment did not determine the proper valuation of the suit.

Source reference: paras. 4–6; pp. 5–6
05

Holding

The High Court allowed the revision and set aside the trial court’s order.

It directed the plaintiffs to pay the claimed deficit court fee of ₹95,711.50 within one week of receiving the order and directed the trial court to hear final arguments and dispose of the suit within eight weeks.

Source reference: paras. 6–7; pp. 6–7

The defendants remained free to contest the suit’s valuation and court-fee calculation before the trial court.

Source reference: paras. 6–7; pp. 6–7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Civil Procedure, 19081

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

S. Sheik Jaffar (Died)1. Bathul BeevsK.S. Akila Begum

Madras High Court · October 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment