ABDULKHADER Vs. ABDUL RAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When a plaintiff failed to remit deficit court fees, the suit was dismissed with costs. His application for restoration of the suit as per O.9 R.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') was also dismissed. Then he filed another application, after remitting the deficit court fee, for enlargement of time for payment of deficit court fee. The lower court allowed the application by the impugned order and restored the suit. This revision is at the instance of the defendant.

(2.) Facts which are not disputed are these; The Trial Court found that court fee in full bad not been paid hence the plaintiff was directed to pay deficit court fee before 14-11-1986. The time was extended on five occasions and it was finally posted to 31-3-1987. On that day the plaintiff was heard but as the deficit court fees were not paid, the court dismissed the suit. The present application, quoting S.148, 149 and IS1 of the Code, was filed after the dismissal of the other application for restoration of the suit filed under O.9 R.9 of the Code. Learned Munsiff noted that the reasons for not remitting deficit court fees within the time allowed have not been disputed. Hence be felt that the application should be allowed since it is the just and reasonable course in the circumstances.

(3.) Two main contentions have been raised in this revision. The first is that, since the dismissal of suit was on merits he has the remedy to file an appeal. The second contention is that court's power to enlarge time cannot be exercised or even invoked when there is no suit or action pending. In support of the first contention, learned counsel brought my attention to the fact that a decree bad already been drawn up by the Trial Court subsequent to the dismissal of the suit and that toe suit was dismissed by pronouncing a judgment.