The power to permit the party to pay the deficit court fee is not affected by any bar of limitation, and the court has inherent power to extend time beyond 30 days if sufficient cause exists or events are beyond the control of a party.

As against the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application filed under Section Order 7 Rule 11(c) CRP to reject the Plaint, the revision petitioners/defendants have come forward with this revision petition.

2. The said I.A., has been preferred by the revision petitioners stating that the plaintiffs have not paid the entire court fee at the time of institution of the suit, and only paid the deficit court fee belatedly, that too without any orders being passed by the court in I.A.No:218 of 2003 filed by the plaintiffs for extension of time for payment of deficit court fee and therefore the plaintiffs have not paid the deficit court fee as per Section 149 CPC since it is time barred for payment of such deficit court fee and therefore the Plaint is liable to be rejected.

3. On the other hand, the respondent/plaintiff contended that the I.A.218 of 2003 has been admitted and allowed and thereafter only the deficit court fee has been paid and therefore there is no laches in payment of deficit court fee and the plea of limitation cannot be raised.

.4. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore, on a consideration of the averments and also the submissions of the respect counsels and after perusing the court records, dismissed the I.A., filed by the defendants for rejection of the Plaint holding that the I.A.No:218 of 2003 has been allowed by the learned Sub Judge by condoning the delay of 49 days in paying the deficit court fee. Against which, the present CRP is filed.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the claim in the plaint is a sum of Rs.7,62,257/= and the court fee as stated therein is Rs.57,170/=, but only a sum of Rs.3000/= was paid at the time of filing of the suit and a months time was granted for paying the deficit court fee. When that stipulated period also expired, I.A.No:218 of 2003 was filed for condoning the delay of 49 days from thereon in paying the deficit court fee. But no proper orders was passed and this came to light only when the matter came up before the Additional Sessions Judge on the case being transferred.

6. According to the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned Subordinate Judge has not passed a specific order as to the condonation of the delay in paying the deficit court fee as per the law laid down in the decision of this court reported in 2005(5) CTC 401. According to the counsel, the learned Subordinate Judge has not passed any specific or clear order in the said I.A., as to either "allowed" or "permitted".

7. According to the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners no notice was ordered to the other side in the I.A., filed for extension of time and if the same had been done, a just and proper decision could have been arrived at. According to him, the deficit court fee could have been paid only on 4. 2003 and not as on 22. 2003 as claimed by the respondent/plaintiff in her counter filed in the I.A.No.443 2006 filed by the revision petitioners for rejecting the plaint. According to the learned senior counsel several decisions cited before the learned Additional Sessions Judge have not been properly analysed by the learned Judge which resulted in miscarriage of justice.

.8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners also alleged that mysterious circumstances are shrouded in allowing the I.A.No.218 of 2003 and paying the deficit court fee and he also made allegations against the court officials as they had colluded with the plaintiff to make correct the records. Therefore, this court called for the original records relating to the said I.A.No.218 of 2003 and the Plaint papers and also the xerox copies of the relevant pages of the Court Fee Register relating to the particular period maintained in the Sub Court at Coimbatore. It seen from the Register, that originally a sum of Rs.3000/= was paid on the date of filing the Plaint and subsequently