The plaintiff in O.S.No.380 of 2001, who is the first defendant in O.S.No.460 of 2002, both on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Erode, is the revision petitioner.

.2. The revision is directed against the order of the First Appellate Court, viz., the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, passed in I.A.No.760 of 2006 in A.S.No.60 of 2006, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reject the appeal, was dismissed.

3. The petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.380 of 2001 for declaration that "A" schedule property is a common property and for mandatory injunction against defendants 1 and 2 to restore "A" schedule property to its original position and also for permanent injunction against defendants 1 and 2 in respect of "A" schedule property. The defendants 1, 2, 7, 12, 13 along with other three persons have filed O.S.No.460 of 2002 against the revision petitioner and others for declaration of their title and for consequential injunction, including mandatory injunction against the revision petitioner to close the doorway and pipeline opening out into the suit property and also for removal of the said pipeline.

.4. Both the suits were tried together by the learned trial Judge. The suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.380 of 2001 was decreed while the suit filed by the defendants in the said suit in O.S.No.460 of 2002 was dismissed. It was against the dismissal of suit in O.S.No.460 of 2002, the plaintiffs in the said suit have filed the first appeal in A.S.No.60 of 2006, in which the revision petitioner was the first respondent. The revision petitioner, pending the said appeal has filed I.A.No.760 of 2006 under Order XLI Rule 3 CPC, to reject the appeal memorandum contending inter alia that the appeal was filed by the respondents on 30.01.2006 without affixing the sufficient Court Fees on the memorandum of appeal, especially when the amount of court fee paid by the respondents at the time of original filing of the appeal was only Rs.10/- whereas the court fee payable is Rs.900/-. Therefore, the appeal papers were rightly returned for payment of deficit court fees and after six months when the defects were complied with, there was not even an order obtained from the Court under Section 149 of Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay in the payment of deficit court fees. Subsequently, the appeal was numbered on 28.06.2006 on payment of remaining court fees and in the absence of petition to condone the delay of six months in paying the large amount of deficit court fees, it should be presumed to have been filed only on 28.06.2006, by which time the appeal is time barred. It was the further case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent Karuppanna Gounder died on 14.02.2004 itself, which is much prior to the date of disposal of the suit and therefore, the suit got abated so far as the 5th appellant in A.S.No.60 of 2006 and 5th plaintiff in O.S.No.460 of 2002 is concerned. However, without impleading all the legal representatives of the 5th respondent, the appeal was filed and hence, it is on these two grounds, the application for rejection of the appeal was filed.

5. The learned First Appellate Judge, relying upon Section 149 CPC has rejected the application on the basis that when once the Court has extended time for compliance and during the time granted by the Court if the deficit court fees has been paid, the same should be taken as permission granted by the Court for payment of deficit court fees and therefore, the same cannot be a ground for the purpose of rejecting the appeal. Further, the First Appellate Court has found that in fact the appeal was filed on 30.01.2006, which was returned by the Office of the court for payment of deficit court fees and after compliance, the same was represented on 25.04.2006 and after full compliance, it was again represented on 28.06.2006 and during the said period, the Court has g