( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the plaintiffs against the order dated 19-1-1983 passed by the IX Additional City Civil Judge Bangalore City, in O. S. No. 2874 of 1982 rejecting I. A. No. 1 filed to recall the order dated 1-12-1982.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs had filed a suit in O. S. No. 2874 of 1982 in the City Civil Court for specific performance of an agreement dated 3-7-1978 and a further agreement dated 19-5-1979.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs paid a court-fee of Rs. 100/- on 12-4-1982 when the suit was filed. The office put up a note dated 2-6-1982 to the effect that the plaintiffs had not paid the court-fee and that the court-fee paid was deficit. The matter was posted before the Court on 1-10-1982 for judicial determination. It was adjourned to 8-10-1982. On 8-10-1982 the court was on leave and hence it was adjourned to 8-11-1982. On 8-11-1982 an application under S. 148 C. P. C. was filed by the plaintiffs seeking three months' time to pay the additional court-fee of Rs. 14,900/ -. The court passed an order on 8-11-1982 granting time till 1-12-1982 to pay the deficit court-fee. On 1-12-1982 the plaintiffs and their counsel were absent and the deficit court-fee was not paid notwithstanding grant of time. Hence the court rejected the plaint.

( 4 ) ON 1-1-1983 I. A. No. 1 was filed for extension of time by recalling the order dated 1-12-1982. The court below rejected the application to recall the order. Hence the revision by the plaintiffs.

( 5 ) IT becomes crystal clear from the above narration of facts that the suit as initially filed suffered from non-payment of necessary court-fee. The office itself put up a note that the court-fee paid is deficit. On 1-10-1982 when the matter was placed before the Court it was adjourned to 8-10-1982. On 8-10-1982 the court was on leave and it was adjourned to 8-11-1982. On 8-11-1982 the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking 3 months' time to pay the deficit court-fee came up before the court for consideration and the court granted time only till 1-12-1982 to pay the deficit court-fee. Therefore these circumstances would go to show that the court below had granted some time to pay the deficit court-fee though the time granted might be shorter than the time prayed for by the plaintiffs. It is not as if the court below rejected the plaintiffs' prayer for payment of the deficit court-fee without giving any time. The plaintiffs' prayer to pay the deficit court-fee was granted.

( 6 ) AFTER the plaint was rejected on 1-12-1982 the plaintiffs filed this application on 11-1983 under S. 151 C. P. C. to recall the order after depositing the entire court-fee.

( 7 ) NOW the question is whether the order, on such an application I. A. No. 1 to recall the order rejecting the plaint, can be recalled by the court which rejected the plaint itself.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel Shri Shivanna cited Balaram Naik v. Krushna Kumari, AIR 1975 Ori 178. It was a case where the plaint was rejected on 12-7-1973 for nonpayment of the deficit court-fee. After the rejection of the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under S. 151 C. P. C. for recalling the order dated 12-7-1973 and to permit them to pay the deficit court-fee. The Orissa High Court held that an application under Sec. 151 C. P. C. was competent and maintainable and accordingly it set aside the order passed by the trial court refusing to exercise the jurisdiction under S. 151 C. P. C.

( 9 ) THEN he placed before me another decision reported in Damodar Prasad v. Aditya Maharaj, AIR 1972 Patna 289. The Patna High Court held as :- "a plaint rejected for non-payment of court-fee can be restored on application under O. 9 R. 4 or Sec. 151, as well as on review of the order of rejection. The order allowing restoration under O. 9 R. 4 or Sec. 151 C. P. C. can be deemed to be one under O. 47 R. 1 C. P. C. as amended by Patna High Court. "

( 10 ) BOTH these decisions have not considered the effect of a remedy available to the party. The learned author