1. This civil revision petition arises out of an order dated 19th April, 1980. By this order, the appellate court dismissed the appeal.

2. The State of Bihar was the appellant before the court below. The State had to deposit the court-fee. The petitioner sent several telegrams as well as special messengers to send the deficit court-fee. but it was not sent within time. The court below gave time on 21st Mar 1980 and 8th April, 1980 for depositing the deficit court-fee. It appears that the total time granted by the court below was less than a month. On 19th April, 1980 the court dismissed the appeal for non-payment of court-fees.

3. It is a matter of ordinary commonsense that the State takes at least one months time in depositing court-fee. The amount of deficit court-fee was Rs. 1272.40 paise, as it appears from the order-sheet dated 10th Mar. 1980. This was not a small amount. Neither the Government Pleader nor the District Magistrate could have paid this amount from his own pocket. For that purpose. sanction is required to be obtained. The State took sufficient steps in informing the authorities for depositing the court-fee, but unfortunately the amount could not be made available for filing the deficit court-fee stamp. Even the private litigants are granted time at least for one month for depositing the deficit court-fee. I do not understand as to why the court was so strict in not granting time for filing the deficit court-fee stamp to the State. No doubt the State and the private parties both stand on the same footing. If a private party is granted sufficient time to file the deficit court-fee stamp, the State should also be granted sufficient time for filing the deficit court-fee stamp which has not been done in the present case. I, therefore, hold that the court below did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law, and it acted with material irregularity and not in accordance with the practice prevalent in the civil courts.

4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party contends that the order amounts to rejection of the memorandum of appeal and, as such, it is appealable. In this connection, a reference was made to S.2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which runs as follows :

"2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- xx xx xx xx

(2) decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Sec.144, but shall not include- (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order or

(b) any order of dismissal for default.

5. On a perusal of clause (b), it is clear that the order of dismissal for default will not be included as a decree. There is no provision in the Code for rejecting a memorandum of appeal. In the present case, the appeal in the court below had been numbered as Title Appeal No. 10 of 1980. It appears from the order dated 28th Feb. 1980, that the appeal was registered. If it is so there was a valid appeal preferred by the State of Bihar before the lower appellate Court. It also appeals from the order dated 19th April. 1980 that the appeal was dismissed for default for non-payment of court-fee. If it is so, then I shall hold that it is not a rejection of the memorandum of appeal, rather it is an order of dismissal for default.

6. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has cited a decision of this Court in Suraj Pal Pandey V/s. Utti Pandey (AIR 1922 Patna 281). The facts of that case were that the appeal was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the lower appellate court restored the appeal without having served any notice upon the respondents. The appellate court re-admitted the appeal under Orde