THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4538 of 2008 Date of Order: 25-04-2011 Between: Bommareddy Sanjeevareddy ..Petitioner and Kalapala Vijay ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4538 of 2008 Oral order: Petitioner/defendant filed this revision to revise the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.619 of 2008 in O.S.No.2333 of 2005 dated 18-09-2008 whereby the petition filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that proper court fee has not been paid within the period of limitation has been dismissed. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit on 20-12-2004 for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note dated 19-12-2001. Since 19-12-2004 falls on Sunday, the suit was filed on 20-12- 2004 which was, admittedly, within three years. The suit was decreed ex- parte and on the application filed by the petitioner herein, ex-parte decree was set aside on 30-07-2007. Thereafter, he filed written statement taking the plea that suit pronote is not supported by consideration and is materially altered. On framing necessary issues, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and also filed an affidavit of his witness and when the suit is posted for cross- examination of the plaintiff witness the above I.A. came to be filed stating that the plaintiff failed to pay the deficit court fee within the period of limitation and without an application under Section 149 CPC for extension of time to pay the deficit court fee. Mere condoning the delay in representation will not amount to extension of time for payment of deficit court fee; therefore, the plaint has to be rejected. The lower court after taking into consideration that the plaint, which was originally recorded in GL.No.34892 dated 20-12-2004, contains only two court fee stamps worth Rs.1,000/- each, which was returned on 24-06-2005 without any objection with regard to payment of court fee and on re-submission of the same on 31-08-2005, an objection was raised on 02-09- 2005 about payment of court fee by way of court fee stamps and returned the plaint. On returning the plaint, the same was re-presented with a petition to condone the delay of 35 days stating that in view of circular issued by the High Court, court fee stamps are not valid, which was allowed on 28-10-2005 but no separate application was filed for enlarging the time for payment of deficit court fee. The lower court after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in MAHANTH RAM DAS v. GANGA DAS[1] and this Court in NALLURI SINGAIAH v. BANDLAPATI KISHORE BABU[2] allowed the above I.A. Hence, the revision. The Supreme Court in MAHANTH RAM DAS’s case (1 supra) categorically held when an application to condone the delay in representation is allowed, it should be deemed that the lower court was satisfied with the reason given for non-payment of court fee also. This court in the case of NALLURI SINGAIAH (2 supra) held under Section 149 CPC the Court will have ample power to extend the time for payment of court fee even after expiry of limitation period. Learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting the very same arguments, which were not accepted by the court below, contended that in the absence of application filed under Section 149 CPC for payment of deficit court fee, the lower court committed an illegality in allowing the I.A. In support of the same reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court in S.A.KHADEER v. G.V.R.ANJANEYULU[3] a n d SIVISHI ASSOCIATES v. JAGADEESHWARI AGENCIES[4]. Both the above cases cited by the learned counsel are not on the point that initially suit was filed along with court fee stamps within the period of limitation. When it was returned no objection was raised with regard to payment of court fee and on resubmission the said objection was raised stating that in view of circular issued by the High Court, court fee in the form of court fee stamps cannot be accepted it has to be deposed in the court which necessitated the petitioner/plaintiff to represent the same with an application to condone the delay for depositing the court fee. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case, the lower court rightly dismissed the I.A. upholding condonation of delay in representation which includes payment of court fee also. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 25-04-2011 Murthy [1] AIR 1961 SC 882 [2] 2006 (4) ALT 554 [3] 2003 (5) ALD 577 [4] 2006 (2) ALT 704