1 2025:CGHC:16829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 363 of 2025 1 - Smt. Suratiya Bai Wd/o Late Sudhlal Aged About 67 Years R/o Vill. Pendry, Ward No. 20 Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) (Plaintiff) ...Petitioner/Plaintiff. versus 1 - Pritak Bajpai S/o Shri Dwarika Nath Bajpai Aged About 55 Years R/o Trimurti Colony, Ward No. 12, District Mahasamund (CG) Presently Residing At Village Pendry, Ward No. 20 Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. (Defendant No. 1). 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shobhit Kostha, Advocate. For State Shri HAPS Bhatia, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. This MCC has been filed for extension of time for complying with this Court’s order dated 04.09.2024 passed in WP(227) No.535 of 2021 whereby, trial Court was directed to give at least one month’s time to petitioner/plaintiff to deposit deficit court fees. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.04.11 13:39:16 +0530 2 due to financial constraints, plaintiff who is a lady aged about 67 years arranged the money and thereafter deposited the court fees of Rs.2,69,600/- belatedly. Hence considering this backdrop, the delay may be condoned. 3. Shri Kostha, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff has already moved an application under Section 149 of CPC which, as per instructions received by him, has already been rejected by the trial Court on 05.04.2025. 4. Replying the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a litigant could not be deprived from impartial justice. Only at the relevant time, plaintiff could not arrange the requisite court fees. He would further submit that when petitioner/plaintiff took a specific plea that due to financial difÏculty she could not arrange the court fees, the trial Court should have adopted a holistic approach to do complete justice to the parties which is a laudable object of Article 39-A of the Constitution of India for which learned counsel places reliance in the matter of Manoharan v. Sivarajan and Others1 and referred para 9, which reads thus:- “9. In the case in hand, it is clear from the evidence on record that the appellant could not pay court fee due to financial difÏculty because of which his suit got rejected. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant had moved the Court claiming his substantive right to his property. The appellant faced with the situation like this, did not deserve the dismissal of the original suit by the Court for non- payment of court fee. He rather 1 (2014) 4 SCC 163 3 deserved more compassionate attention from the Court of Sub-Judge in the light of the directive principle laid down in Article 39-A of the Constitution of India which is equally applicable to district judiciary. It is the duty of the courts to see that justice is meted out to people irrespective of their socio-economic and cultural rights or gender identity.” 5. In the case at hand, petitioner/plaintiff, who is a widow, aged about 67 years has filed the civil suit challenging sale deed. Now she has already deposited the court fees, to which counsel for the other side does not object. Though court fees has been paid belatedly, however, considering the entire fact situation of the case and to advance the cause of justice, this Court is of the view that dismissal of the suit is not proper only because of non-payment of court fees within time granted by this Court in its order dated 04.09.2024, when a specific case is made out in favour of petitioner/plaintiff for extension of time. 6. According, this petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The trial Court is directed to condone the delay. If any order has been passed in terms of Section 149 CPC rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff the same shall be treated in pursuance of extension of time granted by this Court and the trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash