THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU A.SM.P.NO.1522 OF 2011 IN A.S. No.760 of 2009 ORDER: 1. The present application is filed under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to dismiss the Appeal Suit No.760 of 2009 on the file of this Court as time barred and vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation practiced upon the Court, with exemplary costs. 2. On 02.08.2011, none appeared for the respondent/appellant, and therefore, the matter was listed to 08.08.2011 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. On 08.08.2011, again the matter was listed. On that day, at the request of the learned counsel for the respondent/appellant, the mater was adjourned for one week. On 16.08.2011 again the mater was listed and at the request of the learned counsel for the respondent/appellant, it was posted to today finally and with an observation ‘no further time will be granted’. 3. No counter-affidavit is filed. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, remained unchallenged. 4. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that there was delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. Admittedly, as on today no application is filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Furthermore, the entire Court Fee has not been paid and no valid reason is assigned therefor. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.M.P. No.118, 132 of 2011, A.S.M.P. (SR) No.554, 556 and 809 of 2011 in A.S. (SR) No.11260 of 2010 & A.S. (SR) No.11260 of 2010, wherein it is held thus: “Earlier, when a somewhat similar case came up before this Court in A.S.M.P. No.1468 of 2010 in A.S.S.R. No.4881 of 2008, dated 21.12.2010, this Court, following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court and other several decisions as cited therein, viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada v. T.Laxminaayana (AIR 1975 AP 109); Dr.D.Satyanarayana Raju v. State Bank of India (1986 (1) APLJ-SN 99); Mohammad Mahibulla v. Seth Chaman Lal {(1991) 4 SCC 529}; Mannan Lal v. Mst. Chhotaka Bibi {1970 (1) SCC 769) and Nalluri Singaiah v. Bandlapati Kishore Babu (2006 ALT-4-557), did not find favour with the petitioner since it has been held therein that such presentation of appeal with a token court fee would amount to non-presentation at all and consequently the said applications were dismissed. The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the issue involved in the above case as there also token court fee of Rs.10/- was paid, whereas the deficit court fee comes to Rs.46,426/-. The petitioner has not shown any valid reason for such non-payment. I t dehors the consideration of proper presentation of the appeal admitting that there is no presentation at all in the eye of law.” In the case on hand, only a token court fee of Rs.2/- was paid when the appeal was originally presented. 5. Accordingly, the A.S.M.P. is allowed consequently, the appeal shall stand dismissed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J AUGUST 23, 2011. YVL