Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 claiming that the Plaint is barred by limitation, this CRP has been filed.

.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

.The revision petitioner/defendant filed the I.A.No: 91 of 2006 contending that the respondent/plaintiffs promissory suit has to be filed within three years from the date of the promissory note i.e., within 16. 2005. Though the plaintiff filed the suit on 13. 2005 within the period of limitation, yet filed the same with deficit court fee and for that purpose, the plaint was returned with a direction to represent the same within 23. 2005 with proper court fee. However, the plaintiff represented the plaint with full court fees on 12. 2006 without affording any reason. Even in the I.A.No.15 of 2006 taken out to condone the delay in representing the petition, no explanation has been offered for payment of court fee belatedly. Since there is no specific application under Section 149 CPC to pay the deficit court fee belatedly and there being no order under Section 149 CPC permitting the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee, the Plaint is barred by time and liable to be rejected.

3. The respondent/plaintiff contested the said I.A., stating that though the plaint has been initially returned for deficit court fee, the same has been taken on file on representation of the Plaint with proper court fee, after condoning the delay of 312 days in representing the plaint. The defendant has not even filed any counter to the condone delay application filed by the plaintiff and having kept silent, he cannot now contend that the plaint is barred by limitation.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, dismissed the application holding that the delay has been condoned in I.A.No:15 of 2006 and therefore the plaint does not suffer from bar of limitation. Aggrieved over the said decision, this CRP has been filed by the defendant.

.5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant relied on the judgment of this court in S.V. Arjunaraja Vs. P. Vasantha, reported in 2005 (5) CTC 401, wherein a learned Judge of this Court held that in the absence of specific application invoking Section 149 CPC and in the absence of any specific order passed by the court granting or extending time for payment or enlargement the plaintiff is not protected and the suit is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel contended that the above decision squarely applies on all fours and prayed for rejection of the plaint.

6. Section 148 CPC is for enlargement of time for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Code and the court may in its discretion from time to time enlarge such period not exceeding thirty days in total even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired.

7. Section 149 CPC deals with the power to make up deficiency of court fees and the Section provides that the Court in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, 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 it such fee had been paid in the first instance.

8. Section 151 CPC deals with inherent powers of the Court which enables the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

9. It is seen, the plaintiff has not filed any application under Section 149 CPC, seeking time to pay the deficit Court Fee and the Court has also not recorded any reason, for granting extension of time, that too, for payment of deficit Court Fee. Because of the slackness and failure of duty, by the Court, after the period of limitation is over for filing the suit, Court Fee came to be paid on 12. 2006, thereby, compelling the defendant to take a stand, that on the date of payment of entire Court Fee, the suit was