The court has the power to grant an extension of time for the payment of court fees beyond the period of thirty days mentioned in the proviso to Order VII R.11 C.P.C.

1. This is a revision by the 1st defendant in O.S. 147 of 1956, Sub Court, Parur (formerly O.S. 124/55 District Court, Parur) against the order dated 18-12-1956 giving time to the plaintiffs to pay the additional court fees.

2. It is unnecessary to state in detail about the nature of the suit or the reliefs asked for or how these reliefs are to be valued; because there was an order on 23-1-1956 by the learned District Judge, Parur before whom the suit was then pending, directing the plaintiffs to correct the valuation and to pay the requisite court fee as indicated in the said order within two weeks.

3. The plaintiffs filed a revision, C R.P. 80/56 to the Travancore-Cochin High Court against this order of the District Court. In revision, Mr. Justice N. Varadaraja Iyengar confirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the C. R. P. with costs. The plaintiffs appear to have filed an application for amendment of the plaint, but the High Court gave the plaintiffs liberty to move the trial court for appropriate reliefs. Though the time granted by the lower court for payment of additional court fees had already expired on the date of the High Court's order, the learned judge did not say anything about any extension of time for payment of court fees. But there appears to have been a stay of the operation of the trial court's order during the pendency of the C.R.P. in the High Court.

4. When the matter came back to the trial court, the plaintiffs pressed their claim for amendment of the plaint by withdrawing certain reliefs. This was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs have no right to withdraw any relief after the order of the court directing him to pay court fees on the original reliefs claimed. The defendants also objected to the plaintiffs being given any further time for payment of court fees. It is enough to state that the trial court rejected the plaintiffs' request for amendment of the plaint by withdrawing certain reliefs.

5. With regard to the opposition of the defendants based upon the proviso to Order VII R.11 C. P. C. as applicable to this State, the learned judge considered the same, and held that the plaintiffs must be given one more opportunity to comply with the order of the District Court dated 23-1-56 namely, to correct the valuation and pay the deficit court fee as directed therein. In this view, the learned judge directed the plaintiffs to correct the valuation and pay the additional court fees on or before 2-1-1957 and further directed that in default of such compliance within the time given, the suit will stand dismissed.

6. It is against this order of the trial court that the 1st defendant has filed this C. R. P. It may also be stated that on 2-1-1957 the plaintiffs paid the additional court fees as directed by the order of the lower court and in all he has paid court fees of the value of Rs. 3,000/- including the court fees initially paid at the time of filing the suit. As to whether the court fees now paid is a sufficient compliance with the order of the District Court confirmed by Mr. Justice N. Varadaraja Iyengar, we do not say anything; because that matter does not arise in this C.R. P.

7. Mr. T. N. Subramonia Iyer, learned counsel for the 1st defendant-petitioner, has raised two contentions before us namely,

(1) The trial court has no power to give any extension of time for payment of court fees beyond 30 days in all; and

(2) The High Court not having extended the time when disposing of C. R. P. 80/56, the trial court has absolutely no power to grant any extension of time whatsoever.

8. Taking the 2nd contention first, we have no hesitation in not accepting the same; because admittedly on the date of the order of the High Court namely, 26-10-56 the time granted by the trial court was already over. The learned judge himself was giving leave to the plaintiffs to move the lower court for amendment of the plaint and all these will necessarily take time in the trial court. Furth