Question: A plaint is rejected for non-payment of court-fees. Can it be restored under inherent power of the court? [WB J.S. 1993] Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [A plaint is rejected for non-payment of court-fees. Can it be restored under inherent power of the court?] Answer The main question for determination in the present case at… Read More »

Question: A plaint is rejected for non-payment of court-fees. Can it be restored under inherent power of the court? [WB J.S. 1993] Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [A plaint is rejected for non-payment of court-fees. Can it be restored under inherent power of the court?] Answer The main question for determination in the present case at hand is whether the trial court could legally restore the suit when the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 on account of its being...

Question: A plaint is rejected for non-payment of court-fees. Can it be restored under inherent power of the court? [WB J.S. 1993]

Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [A plaint is rejected for non-payment of court-fees. Can it be restored under inherent power of the court?]

Answer

The main question for determination in the present case at hand is whether the trial court could legally restore the suit when the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 on account of its being insufficiently stamped or for non-payment of court fees. It may be observed that the rejection of the plaint comes within the definition of a decree and, therefore once the court has passed a decree, there is no power left in it to correct the same except on review or under Section 152 if the mistake is covered by that section.

Order IX Rule 9 which specifically provides for restoration of a suit could not be applicable to the present case. The trial court could not exercise even its inherent powers under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code because there was no question of prevention of the abuse of the process of the court. If the court had informed the plaintiff’s that the court-fees must be deposited and on failure to do so when the plaint was rejected on account of the non-payment of court-fees on that date, there was no power left in it to restore the suit under its inherent powers when other remedies are provided by law.

If the plaintiff wanted to move the same court, he could request it for reviewing its decree under Order 47 of CPC. Another remedy left open to him was to go in appeal against the rejection of the plaint since it amounted to a decree. A third course was to present a fresh plaint under Order VII, Rule 13.

An application for restoration of the suit in the above circumstances is not covered by any of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the trial court had taken the right view that it had no power to restore the suit, in the case Rameshwardhari Singh v. Sadhu Saran, 1923 Fat 354 (AIR V 10) (A). In this case a similar question had arisen and it was held that

“The order rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code operated as a decree, and Order XX, Rule 3 provides:

that a judgment once signed shall not afterwards be altered or added to save as provided by Section 152 or on review.”

There can be no doubt, in my opinion that once an order of the Court is perfected there is absolutely no power in that Court under its inherent jurisdiction either to alter, or add to, that order, save as provided by Section 152 or on re-view.”

The Calcutta High Court in ‘S.M. Bose v. Hauz Md. Fa-ten Nasib‘, 1934 Cal 62-3 (AIR V 21) (C) observed that

“The order of 17-1-1933 no matter whether it was a decision rightly or wrongly given was an order of rejection of a plaint and an order of rejection of a plaint is a decree as defined in Section 2 of the Code. If the plaintiff felt aggrieved by this order, his remedy lay either by an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 or by filing an appeal against it. The plaintiff did not choose to take either of these two courses open to him under the Code. It is well settled that a Court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 when the applicant has his remedy prescribed elsewhere in the Code and has neglected to avail himself of such a remedy.”

Thus, when a plaint is rejected for non-payment of court-fees, it cannot be restored under inherent power of the court because the plaintiff has other alternative remedy to restore the plaint.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

Updated On 2022-04-08T05:10:14+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story