THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3136 of 2009 Date: 08.09.2009 Between: Mudagani Veerappa, Nallamada Mandal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner And Tholeti Rajasekhara Reddy, NallamadaMandal, Anantapur District. …Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3136 of 2009 O R D E R: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri for recovery of a sum of Rs.71,500/- allegedly due from the respondent herein/defendant. Since the plaint was presented with deficit Court fee, the same was returned granting time for payment of deficit Court fee till 29.06.2006. The revision petitioner/plaintiff could not represent the same within the time granted and on 19.07.2008 he filed I.A.No.1384 of 2008 with a prayer to condone the delay of 836 days in paying the deficit Court fee as well as representation of the plaint. The said application was dismissed by the Court below, by order dated 20.03.2009, holding that the plaintiff had failed to make out sufficient cause to condone the delay of 836 days. The Court below also held that though the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge about the return of the plaint and the time granted by the Court for payment of deficit Court fee, he had left the village and deliberately failed to pay the deficit Court fee within the time granted. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the explanation offered by the plaintiff that he had migrated to Banglore along with his family members for his livelihood as there was no work in the native village due to drought conditions, the Court below was not at all justified in concluding that no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of the delay in payment of deficit Court fee. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in MAHANTH RAM DAS V. GANGA DAS[1], whereunder it was held that the Court can enlarge the time even though it had peremptorily fixed the period for payment and even if the original period fixed had expired. Section 149 of C.P.C. which empowers the Court to make up deficiency of Court fees provides that the Court may in its discretion at any stage, allow the person by whom the Court fees is payable to pay the whole or part as the case may be, of such Court fees. As held in MAHASAY GANESH PRASAD RAY V. NARENDRA NATH SEN[2], though the procedure for payment of court fee is primarily a matter between the Government and the person concerned and the other party cannot attack the order on the ground that it takes away his valuable right to plead the bar of limitation, the discretion to be exercised under Section 149 of C.P.C. is one of judicial discretion. The law is also well settled that where the time granted by the Court to pay the deficit Court fee falls within the period of limitation to file the suit, no notice need be given to the defendant/opposite party, however, before exercising discretion under Section 149 of C.P.C., and granting time to the plaintiff to pay necessary Court fee and which time goes beyond the period of limitation to file a suit, notice must be given to the defendant. Having regard to the explanation offered by the plaintiff for the delay in payment of deficit Court fees the Court below ought to have issued notice to the defendant and after hearing both the parties appropriate order could have been passed. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to pass appropriate orders afresh in I.A.No.1384 of 2008 after issuing a notice to the defendant/respondent herein. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 08-09-2009 KLP [1] AIR 1961 SC 882 [2] AIR 1953 SC 431