IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 135 of 2000 Reserved on: 18.04.2011 Date of decision : 13.6.2011. Surrinder Singh Sautha …Appellant. Versus Raja Yogindra Chandra …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. K.D.Sood with Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Bhupender Gupta Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta and Mr. B.C.Negi, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for possession of the suit property against the appellant (here-in-after referred to as the defendant). The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned trial Court vide its judgement and decree dated 19.09.1996 and decree for possession of the suit property was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant filed an appeal and the learned lower Appellate Court upheld the judgement of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 learned trial Court except on the issue of valuation and Court fees. The learned lower Appellate Court held that the Court fees had to be paid on the market value of the suit property which was assessed at Rs.50,000/-. The appeal was disposed of in the following terms:- “In view of my findings on point No.1 here-in-above, this appeal succeeds partly. The same is thus partly allowed. The suit of the plaintiff for possession of the suit building existing over Khasra No.5140/5, Khasra No. 5140/2, measuring 0-07 biswas, the compounds appurtenant thereto situate over Khasra No.5140/3, measuring 0-1 biswa and Khasra No.5121/1, measuring 0-2 biswas and the wooden structure over Khasra No. 5121/3, measuring 0-40 biswas, situate in Chak Deora, Tehsil, Jubbal, District Shimla is hereby decreed, however, subject to the payment of Court fee keeping in view this Court valued the same by assessing the market value of the suit property as Rs.50,000/- for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction so as to the relief sought in the plaint. The deficiency in the Court fee be made good within two months from today, failing which the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Let the decree sheet be drawn accordingly.” 3 2. When the appeal came up for hearing Shri Vinay Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff had not made good the deficiency in the Court fees and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff should be deemed to have been dismissed. Number of dates were taken by the plaintiff for verifying this fact but now it stands admitted that the plaintiff did not make good the deficiency in the Court fees within the time prescribed by the learned lower Appellate Court. 3. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 149 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure being CMP No. 1159 of 2010 praying for extension of time in making good the deficiency of the Court fees. Learned counsel for the parties addressed lengthy arguments on the issue as to whether time could be extended and if it could be extended whether there were sufficient grounds to extend the time. 4. In my view, it is not necessary to either cite the judgements or to make detailed reference to the arguments because I am of the considered view that time, if at all, can only be extended by the Court which fixed the time and not by this Court. It was the learned lower Appellate Court 4 which fixed the time for making good the deficiency in the Court fees. Any application for extension of time had to be filed before the learned lower Appellate Court itself and would not lie to this Court. Therefore, CMP No.1159 of 2010 is rejected as being not maintainable in this Court with liberty reserved to the plaintiff to move proper application before the learned lower Appellate Court. 5. As far as the main appeal is concerned, in view of the direction of the learned lower Appellate Court the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed and therefore, the present appeal is infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. It is, however, made clear that in case the learned lower Appellate Court holds that the application for extension of time for making good the deficiency in the Court fees is maintainable and also extends the time in filing the Court fees then the appellant-defendant shall be at liberty to file a fresh appeal and in such appeal he can take up all grounds including the grounds taken in this appeal. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 13th June, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.