THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP NO. 2596 OF 2007 Date of Judgment: 25.2.2011 Between: Chakali Siddanna …Petitioner and Kuruva Rathana Eranna ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 2596 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of amount of Rs.8,575/- comprising Rs.5,000/- towards principal and Rs.3,575/- towards interest, based on promissory note dated 14.4.2000 allegedly executed by the defendant. The said suit was, however, not accompanied with the requisite court fee, but, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, only a nominal court fee was paid and office of the court below, therefore, returned the plaint and the same is now sought to be represented after a delay of 1171 days together with deficit court fee. The said application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the abnormal delay in representation. Hence this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is an agricultural coolie and he went to Bombay with family for livelihood and as such deficit court fee could not be paid. I have seen the copy of the plaint as well as the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application for condonation of delay. Para-2 of the affidavit which is the only material para speaks of the petitioner/plaintiff going to Bombay for livelihood and unable to pay the proper court fee. No other reason nor anything substantiating the aforesaid ground is mentioned in the affidavit. Even if the application for condonation of delay is liberally construed, the fact remains that when the petitioner filed the suit, he was aware of the advoleram court fee payable on the suit claim under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, but apparently he just paid nominal court fee with a view to present the suit within time. The substantial part of the court fee is now sought to be paid along with the present application after the delay of almost four years. If the suit were to be filed now, on the date of paying deficit court fee, the suit would be clearly barred. This Court is generally liberal with respect to condonation of delay in representation, but the facts and circumstances of the case show that the suit for recovery of amount is sought to be now filed after a long lapse of limitation by paying deficit court fee, which is substantially long after the formal presentation of the suit within limitation. The defendant would certainly be prejudiced, if the suit is entertained now. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below in refusing to condone the said delay. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. If the petitioner has deposited the deficit court fee, he can claim refund of deficit fee by approaching the trial Court. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 25.2.2011 KR