Delayed Court Fee Payment Cannot Revive Omitted Counter Claim Post-Trial: SC

Trial courts cannot allow litigants to belatedly pay court fees and revive a non-existent counter claim after the conclusion of evidence without satisfying the strict test of due diligence. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, financial incapacity alone cannot serve as an automatic ground to bypass statutory limits on amending pleadings post-commencement of trial.

A Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling while setting aside the concurrent orders of the High Court and Trial Court that had permitted a defendant to deposit court fees on a counter claim four years after submitting the written statement and after the entire trial evidence was closed.

Limits on Section 149 and Counter Claims Post-Trial

Addressing the scope of Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Supreme Court distinguished the precedent in A. Nawab John & Ors v. VN Subramaniyam ( "(2012) 7 SCC 738": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 874), noting that while courts hold authority to accept deficient court fees at any stage, such exercise requires an active claim existing on record.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "After the trial was concluded, an amendment to the written statement, incorporating a counter claim; which was necessary as we noticed hereinabove, would have been difficult. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would have restricted such amendment, since though Rule 17 provides for amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings with leave of the Court, the proviso permits such amendments after the trial has commenced, only in circumstances where the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party was prevented from raising the matter before commencement of the trial."

The Court issued the following directions:

"The Suit shall be adjudicated without the counter claim. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions."

Background

In the present case, a written statement containing a counter claim was filed on October 13, 2015, but was returned for proper presentation. When resubmitted on March 29, 2016, the defense explicitly requested the court to accept only the written statement, citing inability to pay the required court fees. Consequently, the counter claim was not taken on record.

After the evidence of the plaintiff was officially closed on July 24, 2019, and witness cross-examination concluded on January 29, 2020, the defendant filed an application on March 5, 2020, seeking permission to deposit court fees on the counter claim. The Trial Court allowed the application on the same day without affording reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff, and the High Court subsequently affirmed this order in revision.

Reversing both judgments, the Supreme Court held that allowing a counter claim after trial completion severely prejudices the opposing party, who had no occasion to adduce evidence against an unrecorded claim. The appeal was accordingly allowed, directing the suit to proceed strictly without the counter claim.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 9775 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 777
Case Title: IJM Corporation Berhad v. M/s Lakshmi Sai Constructions Company and Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nishanth Patil, AoR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AoR

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 727