Appeal Dismissed: Delay Condoned but Debt Acknowledgment Validates Timely Suit, Lower Court's Decision Affirmed.

The Court allowed the appellant's application to condone a 52-day delay in refiling the appeal due to the late payment of the required court fee. It also permitted rectification of the deficiency in court fee. The appellant's challenge to the lower Courts' judgments, which decreed the respondent's suit for recovery of a specific amount, was dismissed. The Court held that the suit was not time-barred, as the appellant's issuance of a cheque in 2007 acknowledged the debt, thus falling within the limitation period. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the lower Courts' findings.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.
2. Making good the deficiency in Court fee.
3. Challenge to judgments and decree passed by lower Courts regarding recovery of a specific amount.

Condonation of Delay in Refiling the Appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of a 52-day delay in refiling the appeal due to non-availability of the required court fee. The delay was attributed to the time taken to obtain the necessary amount to deposit the full court fee. The application was supported by an affidavit. The Court allowed the application, condoning the delay of 52 days in refiling the appeal.

Making Good the Deficiency in Court Fee:
Another application was filed to rectify the deficiency in court fee. It was mentioned that initially, less court fee was affixed, but upon being notified by the Registry, the required court fee stamps were submitted/affixed, eliminating the deficiency. The application was supported by an affidavit. The Court permitted the deficient court fee to be rectified.

Challenge to Judgments and Decree:
The appeal challenged the judgments and decree passed by the lower Courts, where the respondent's suit for recovery of a specific amount was decreed, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed. The appellant argued that the suit was time-barred as the amount was handed over in 2001, and the suit was filed in 2009, beyond the three-year limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The appellant also disputed the issuance of a cheque in 2007 and the authenticity of the signatures on it.

The Court considered the submissions and reviewed the lower Courts' judgments. It noted that although the amount was handed over in 2001, the appellant issued a cheque in 2007 as an acknowledgment of the debt, falling within the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, preventing the suit from being time-barred. The Court referenced a judgment from the Bombay High Court to support this interpretation.

The appellant's reliance on a different judgment was deemed misplaced, as it contradicted his argument and supported the enforceability of time-barred debts upon acknowledgment of liability. The Court found that the suit was filed within the limitation period from the date of the cheque issuance. The appellant's denial of being a Travel Agent and disputing the signatures on the cheque was dismissed, as the evidence presented by the respondent established the appellant's liability and acknowledgment of the debt.

Both lower Courts had reached concurrent findings after properly evaluating the evidence, without any legal errors or irregularities. The Court concluded that no substantial legal question required further consideration, and hence, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of condonation of delay in refiling the appeal, rectifying the deficiency in court fee, and the challenge to the judgments and decree passed by the lower Courts regarding the recovery of a specific amount.

---