A court has no jurisdiction to extend time for payment of court fees under Sections 148 and 149 of the Civil Procedure Code, or under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the order rejecting the plaint for non-payment of deficit court-fee is tantamount to a decree.

Ramaswami, J.

1. The petitioner Mahanth Ramdas Chela had instituted a suit before the Subordinate Judge of Gaya asking for a declaration that he was the duly constituted Mahant of Moghal Kuan Sangat and of Bhandajore Sangat. When the plaint was originally presented it did not contain a relief for possession of the endowed properties. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge who found that the plaintiff had not established that he was initiated as a chela of Gulab Das, the previous Mahant, and further that the custom of nomination as alleged by the plaintiff was not proved. The Subordinate Judge also found that Bhandajore Sangat and the properties described in touzi B/106 were in possession of the defendant although the plaintiff was in possession of the Moghal Kuan Sangat. The Subordinate Judge, therefore, held that the suit was barred under Section 42, Specific Relief Act. Against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Appeal No. 389 of 1947 was presented before the High Court. When the appeal came before us in the first instance, we gave a hearing to the parries and decided that the main question at issue should be answered in favour of the plaintiff and that a decree should be granted stating that the plaintiff was the duly constituted Mahant of Moghal Kuan Sangat and of Bhandajore Sangat and that he was entitled to be placed in the management of the endowed properties belonging to these two Sangats.

But the difficulty in the way of the plaintiff appellant was that in the plaint as originally presented there was no relief for confirmation or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the endowed properties. During the hearing of the appeal, the petitioner realised that the provisions of Section 42, Specific Relief Act, might stand in his way and therefore amended his plaint by asking for additional relief for confirmation or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the properties attached to the two Sangats. In view of the amendment made in the plaint, we called for a report from the Subordinate Judge on the question of valuation so that the suit might be properly valued and the plaintiff might be granted an opportunity to pay the court-fees. On 30-3-1954, we heard the parties again in the matter of valuation and decided that the plaintiff should pay ad valorem court-fee on the amount of Rs. 12,178-4-0 in the trial court and also, on the memorandum of appeal in the High Court; we granted the plaintiff three months time to pay the court-fee for the trial Court and also for the High Court. It is necessary that the operative portion of this order should be quoted in full: "We grant the plaintiff three months time to pay the court-fee for the trial Court and also for the High Court. The time will be computed from the date Counsel for the appellant is informed of the calculation by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court. If the amount is not paid within the time given, the appeal will stand dismissed,

If the court-fee is paid within the time given, the appeal will be allowed with costs and the suit brought by the plaintiff will stand decreed with costs and the plaintiff will be granted a decree declaring that he is the duly constituted Mahanth of the two Sangats (Moghal Kuan Sangat and Bhandajore Sangat) and that he is entitled to recover possession of all the properties mentioned in the amended plaint so far as tho Bhandajore Sangat is concerned and for confirmation of possession so far as the Moghal Kuan Sangat is concerned."

2. It appears that the High Court office intimated to Counsel for the petitioner on 8-4-1954 that the deficit court-fee payable was Rs. 1987-8-0. The petitioner did not pay the court-fee within the lime allowed. On 7-7-1954, the petitioner applied to the Vacation Judge, Choudhary J., for extension of time on the ground that the petitioner had suffered from an attack of influenza and could not arrange for the money. Choudhary J. ordered that the matter should be