1 wp9681.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 9681 of 2010 M/s. Aireff De Tox Incineration & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. The Member Secretary & ors. ... Respondents Mr. Surel S. Shah for the petitioners. Mrs. Neeta Karnik for the respondents 1-3. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 20, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th August, 2010 vide which the learned Judge Senior Division, Nashik has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner for grant of time to make payment of Court fees and has consequently rejected the counter claim. 3. The Respondents have filed a Special Civil Suit No. 379/2009 against 2 wp9681.10.sxw the present petitioners for payment of an amount of Rs. 50,88,677/- alongwith interest. It appears that since the written-statement was not filed within a stipulated time, the application was filed by the present petitioner for permission to file written-statement beyond stipulated period. The said application was allowed. Written-statement alongwith counter claim was filed. However, it appears that alongwith counter claim the requisite court fees was not paid. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for grant of time to pay the court fees. On the said application, the aforesaid orders are passed. Hence, the present petition. 4. Shri Shah, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the counter claim and refusing to grant the reasonable time to pay the court fees. He submits that as a matter of fact, the petitioners have already purchased the stamps. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the petition. She submits that though ample opportunity was given to the petitioners to pay Court fees, they have acted in negligent manner and as such no interference is warranted. 3 wp9681.10.sxw 6. The suit is of the year 2009. Alongwith the written-statement the petitioners have already filed the counter claim. However, it appears that for reasons stated in the application, the Court fees could not be paid alongwith counter claim. 7. I find that in the interest of justice, the learned trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioners to pay the Court fees. Insofar as the prejudice that is caused to the respondents is concerned, that could have been compensated by saddling cost. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The learned trial Court would permit the petitioners to pay the court fees on the counter claim, if paid within a period of two weeks from today. However, this shall be subject to the cost which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The cost be deposited in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of cost, the respondent-plaintiff would be at liberty to withdraw the same. (B.R. GAVAI, J)