The court's discretion to condone delay in paying deficit court fees under Section 149 CPC should be exercised judiciously, and the appellant has no right to ask for time for payment of the deficit court fee. Good faith should be understood in the sense that the word is used in the General Clauses Act, 1897, and not as used in the Limitation Act, 1963.

1. In this appeal filed by the Collector, Land Acquisition Jammu, and the State of Jammu and Kashmir, against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jammu, in file No. 13 dated 26.9.74, an application has been filed by the appellants under S. 149 of the Civil P. C. for condonation of delay in paying the deficit court-fees. The application has been opposed by the respondents.

2. Before considering the question of condition of delay in paying the deficit court-fees, a few relevant facts have to be stated.

3. The judgment and decree of the District Judge Jammu was passed on 26.9.74. The last date for filing the appeal against the said judgment and decree was 3.1.75. The appeal was actually filed on 23.12.74, i. e. well within the time for filing the appeal, but the appeal was filed with a court-fees of Rs. 460/- whereas the proper court fees payable was Rs. 2952.50. The Registry of this court made an endorsement on the appeal on 24.12.74 pointing out the deficiency in the court-fees and asking the counsel for the appellants to make up the deficiency. No date was however fixed by the Registry within which the deficit court-fee had to be paid. The deficiency was not made uptil 24.2.75 on which date the Registry again made the following note on the memorandum of appeal :

"Court-fee in the appeal has not been paid by the counsel for the appellant as yet. Issue notice to the counsel for the appellant asking him to make good the deficiency in the court-fee at once Put up before the D R. on 10.3.75."

On 10.3.75 the Registry again made the following .note :

"Counsel for the appellant is present. He seeks time to make up the deficiency in the court-fee. Put up tomorrow.

Then the following not appears on 11.3.75.

"Counsel for the appellant is present. He has made good the deficiency in the court fee, i. e. Rs. 2492 only. Now the court fee is correct. Put up for admission."

4. As a matter of fact the deficit court-fees was paid on 10.3.75 itself.

5. On 2-7-75 the Registry made a note to the effect that deficit court-fees had been paid after a period of more than two and a half months after filing the appeal and that no application had been filed on behalf of the appellants for condonation of delay in paying the deficit court-fees. The Registry further noted that respondent No. 2 had made an application that before passing any order he may be afforded an opportunity of being heard. An application dated 19-11-75 was filed on behalf of the appellant under S. 149 of the Civil P. C. for condonation or delay in making up the deficiency in the court-fees. This application was supported by an affidavit of Shri P. S. Kotwal, PA to the Advocate General. Jammu, stating the reasons for not paying the requisite court-fees at the time of filing the appeal and also for the delay in making up the deficiency in the court-fees. This application was resisted by the respondents and objections were filed by Shri D. N. Mahajan, respondent No. 2 supported by an affidavit. In view of the above controversy, this court passed an order on 24-12-75 calling upon the parties to adduce evidence. In accordance with this order, evidence has been adduced by both the parties which would be discussed at a later stage.

6. S. 149 of the Civil P. C. under which the appellants have filed the application reads as follows:-

"Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to court-fees has not been paid the court may, in its direction at any stage, allow as the case may be, of such court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance.

7. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants has contended that S. 149 of the Civil P.C. has to be read along with 0.7 r. 11 and Ss. 107 and 141 of the Civil P. C. and that when so read it is incumbent upon the court to give an opportunit