M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks assailing the order dated 5.4.2010 of learned Addl. District Judge (ADJ), Delhi, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (c) read with Section 151 CPC, was dismissed.

2. The respondent Surjeet Kaur had filed a suit for declaration, cancellation and mandatory injunction against the petitioner and defendants namely Ankur Mittal and Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The case of the respondent was that her husband purchased the house bearing No. 918, Pocket 3, Sector 19, Pappan Kalan, Dwarka, New Delhi from its original allottee Mr.Ankur Mittal on 10.07.2007. On 14.10.2008, she came to know that the petitioner herein, on the basis of forged signatures of original allottee Mr. Mittal, got executed conveyance deed of the suit property in his (petitioner) favour from the DDA. She also averred that a complaint in this regard against the petitioner was lodged with the police vide FIR No.818/2008, under Sections 420/468/471/511/120B IPC, P.S. Dwarka. She sought the under-mentioned reliefs in the suit:

“(a) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby declare the document i.e. general power of attorney allegedly notarized in the month of September, 2000 and conveyance deed executed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in favour of the defendant no. 1 as null and void and ab initio.

(b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 and 4, their agents, servants and associates may be not restrained of dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property i.e. DDA Flat No. 918,situated at Pocket -3, Sector 19, Pappan Kalan, Dwarka, New Delhi and from entering within and around 100 mtrs. of the suit property and from taking possession of the suit property forcibly and creating nuisance and interference with the exclusive possession of the plaintiff in and around the suit property and selling alienating disposing off, transferring, mortgaging etc. the suit property on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents.

(c) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 and 4 thereby directing the defendants no. 3 to cancel the conveyance deed executed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in favour of defendant no. 1”.

3. The case that was set up by the petitioner was that Mr. Mittal had sold the suit premises to him in September, 2000. He denied that the signatures of Mr. Mittal were forged, as alleged.

4. The suit was initially filed before the court of Senior Civil Judge. Since the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction being more than his jurisdiction, the Sr. Civil Judge placed the matter before the District Judge for transfer of the same to the court of appropriate jurisdiction. That is how the case came to the court of learned ADJ.

5. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) (c) read with Section 151 CPC, alleging therein that since the respondent/plaintiff had failed to make good the deficiency in the court fee despite repeated orders, and since in view of the amendment in Section 148 CPC, the court could not extend the period of payment of court fee beyond 30 days, the plaint was liable to be rejected. This application came to be dismissed vide impugned order, which is under challenge in the instant petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent/plaintiff and DDA. The submissions which have been made by the learned counsel before me are the same which were made before the ADJ, that in view of Section 148 CPC, the court could not extend the period for payment of court fee beyond 30 days from the date of order. It was submitted that vide orders dated 12.08.2009, 27.08.2009 and 22.09.2009, the respondent/plaintiff was called upon to pay the deficient court fees, but the plaintiff failed to do the