( 1. ) THE Appellant/Plaintiff has filed this instant Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 12/2/2007 in A.S.No.212 of 2006 passed by the Learned First Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai in affirming the Order dated 28/12/2005 of the Learned District Munsif, Melur in rejecting the plaint in O.S.(SR) No.7009 of 2005.

( 2. ) THE First Appellate Court, viz., the Learned First Additional Sub- Judge, Madurai, in dismissing A.S.No.212 of 2006 filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff on 12/2/2007 in the judgment has among other things observed that even on 16/11/2005, the Appellant/Plaintiff has known what is the Court fee charges to be paid. But has not paid the same and further, has also not filed an application as per Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Also when the trial Court has returned the plaint and that the defects in full have been rectified and filed the same, it cannot be said that the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court are not proper. Moreover, the rejection of plaint made by the trial Court as per the Judgment of the Honourable High Court is a legal one and no interference is called for and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with costs.

Earlier, the Learned District Munsif, Melur in O.S.(SR) No.7009 of 2005 has passed an order on 28/12/2005 in rejecting the plaint filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff by inter alia observing that the Appellant/Plaintiff has not projected an application as per Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying permission of the Court to pay the deficit Court fee and in the absence of said application being filed the plaint filed by paying the appropriate Court fee with a delay is not proper and consequently, rejected the plaint.

( 3. ) WHEN the trial Court has rejected the plaint in O.S.(SR) No.7009 of 2005 dated 28/12/2005, the Appellant/Plaintiff filed A.S.No.212 of 2006 before the First Appellate Court viz., the Learned First Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai.

( 4. ) THE First Appellate Court viz., the First Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai, after contest, has dismissed A.S.No.212 of 2006 on 12/2/2007 by observing that 'there is no need to interfere with the order of rejection of the plaint passed by the trial Court' and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with costs.

Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree dated 12/2/2007 in A.s.No.212 of 2006, the Appellant/Plaintiff has projected the Second Appeal before this Court.

( 5. ) AT the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

"(i). Whether the Courts below are correct in law rejecting the plaint without adverting to the due compliance of the original return within the stipulated time and without adverting to Order 7 Rule 11 (c) of Civil Procedure Code? (ii). Whether the Court below are right in rejecting to the plaint by stating that no application under section 149 of Civil Procedure Code seeking for extension of time for remitting the deficit Court fee without adverting to the orders passed o 24/11/2005?"

( 6. ) THE CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDING ON SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW (i) and (ii):- The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed an error in rejecting the plaint without adverting to the fact that the plaint has been returned on the specific directions of the Court, which has directed the Appellant/Plaintiff to remit the Court fee and the same has been complied with.

The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff urges before this Court that when the Appellant/Plaintiff has paid the deficit Court fee and has complied with the directions of the trial Court in time and represented the plaint, then, it is not open to the trial Court to reject the plaint by observing that application/petition under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been filed and that too when the trial Court has exercised its discretionary pow