IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2431 of 2009 GANESH CHANDRA PRASAD & ANR Versus FRANK ANTHONI ----------- 12.07.2010 This is an application for restoration of S.A.No. 259 of 2004, the memo of appeal of which stood rejected on 2nd February 2005 due to non-compliance of the peremptory order of that date (2.2.2005) which directed for deposit of deficit court-fee of Rs.1,549.50, with a rider that if it was not complied within 4 weeks, the Memorandum of appeal would stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. The Office notes on the record of the said S.A. indicates that the petitioner/appellant has filed I.A.no.4643 of 2005 on 12th September 2005 praying for exemption of court fee, but since the I.A. was filed after expiry of the peremptory time, it was simply kept on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/appellant belongs to the scheduled tribe category and due to this, he is entitled to be exempted from payment of court-fee. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner/appellant was plaintiff before the trial court and he was exempted there from payment of court-fee. In support of his submission, learned counsel refers to the decree of the appellate court where the petitioner/appellant was Respondent no.1. In the decree of the appellate court, where cost of the said appeal has been calculated, it is mentioned that the petitioner/appellant was exempted from payment of cost on the terms and condition that he was a member of scheduled tribe, by case Kharwar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/appellant being a member of scheduled tribe remained under the impression that he would not be required to pay court-fee. It is also submitted that the petitioner/appellant also filed I.A. No.4643 of 2005 on 12th September 2005, but with some delay and that the same having been filed after the peremptory time, as granted by the order dated 2nd February 2005, the I.A. was not considered. Considering that the petitioner/appellant takes the ground of he being not alive to pay court-fee and that he also filed a petition under I.A.No. 4643 of 2005 but with some delay, I feel it just and proper to allow the restoration application. In any view of the matters, S.A.No.259 of 2004 is ordered to be restored to its original file. Office will place I.A.No.4643 of 2005. Restoration application is allowed. Jay/ ( C.M.Prasad,J)