IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Application MCC No. 343 of 2010 in First Appeal No. 71 of 2007 Anirudh Singh Katoch S/o Late Shri B.S. Katoch R/o Bist, Estate, Beerbhatti District Nainital …………..…Appellant Versus M/s Manu Maharani Hotels Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Reg. Office at 4821/24, Prahlad Lane Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi. …….Respondent Shri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, present for the applicant/appellant. Shri Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, present for the respondent. Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon. B.S. Verma, J. This application MCC no. 343 of 2010, moved on behalf of the applicant/appellant seeking further time to deposit court fee in the appeal and to fix the date of hearing in the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 3. Order dated 2.11.2007, passed by this Court in first appeal no. 71 of 2007, Anirudh Singh Katoch vs. M/s Manu Maharani Hotels Ltd., shows that this Court allowed the applicant/appellant to pay the court fee within a period of ten days which expired on 11.11.2007, and memorandum of appeal stood rejected. 4. The review application MCC no. 1538 of 2007 was filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant which was dismissed by this Court on 29.12.2008. Thereafter it appears that the applicant/appellant challenged said order before the Apex Court by filing special leave to appeal (civil) CC no. 6116 of 2009, which was dismissed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 24.07.2009. The review application filed before the Apex Court was also dismissed on 19.11.2009. Now the present application MCC no. 343 of 2010, is filed on 12.05.2010, seeking further time to pay the court fee. 5. learned counsel for the respondents objected to the prayer made in the application and drew the attention of this Court to the amended provision contained in section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that where any period is fixed or granted by the court for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the court, the court may in its discretion from time to time enlarge such period not exceeding thirty (30) days in total, even though period originally fixed. 3 6. Considering above provision of law the applicant/appellant could have been allowed further time to pay the court fee within a reasonable period after the expiry of ten (10) days allowed by the court to pay the court fee. After more than two years the applicant/appellant is seeking further time to pay the court fee which is against the spirit contained in section 148 of the code. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant drew attention of this Court to section no149 of the Code and argued that at any stage, the time can be allowed to make good the deficiency of court fee. Provision contained in section 149 allows where the proceedings are pending. In the present case as on the date when the application is moved neither the suit is pending nor the appeal is pending which stood decided vide order dated 7.11.2007. 8. In the above circumstances this Court has no option but to reject the application MCC no. 343 of 2010, moved on behalf of the applicant/appellant. 9. Therefore, the same is rejected. (B.S.V., J.) (P. C. P., J.) Dt. 14.05.2010 P.Verma 4