The defendant in the original suit is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petitions. The suit was filed by the respondent in the Civil Revision Petitions for recovery of money allegedly due to it from the revision petitioner alongwith interest and cost. But, the plaint came to be presented with insufficient Court fee stamps. Hence, the plaint was returned by the trial Court for re-presentation after supplying the necessary Court fee stamps. The respondent/plaintiff re-presented the plaint with a petition under Section 149 CPC to extend the time for payment of the deficit Court fee. The same was allowed and the thirty days time was granted for payment of deficit Court fee. Within the said thirty days time initially allowed by the trial Court, the respondent herein/plaintiff was not able to mobilize funds to pay the deficit Court fee. Hence, she filed a second petition for extension of time for payment of deficit Court fee. The said petition was allowed and further time of 14 days was granted for payment of deficit Court fee. Within that 14 days time granted by the trial Court, the deficit Court fee was supplied and accordingly, the plaint was numbered as a suit. On service of summons, the revision petitioner herein/defendant in the original suit entered appearance and filed a written statement contending that the suit was barred by limitation, among other grounds. Subsequently, the revision petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.968 of 2012 and I.A.No.969 of 2012 under Section 151 CPC to recall the orders passed by the trial Court extending the time for payment of deficit Court fee. In addition, the revision petitioner herein/defendant filed I.A.No.970 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for the rejection of the plaint.

2. The learned trial Judge, heard all the three applications jointly and dismissed them by a common order dated 25.04.2013. It is as against the said common order and the decreetal orders passed in the above said interlocutory applications, the present civil revision petitions came to be filed.

3. The arguments advanced on both sides are heard. The copy of the impugned common order and the decreetal orders and also the documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused and taken into consideration. Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:-

“149. Power to make up deficiency of court-fees.

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 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 if such fee had been paid in the first instance.”

4. According to the said provision where the whole or any part of the fee prescribed for any document has not been paid, the Court in its discretion could permit payment of such Court fee and thereby condone the delayed payment of the Court fee. If the same is done by the Court, then it shall have the effect as if the Court fee had been paid in the first instant itself. In P.K. Palanisamy Vs. N. Arumugham and Another, reported in (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 173, the Supreme Court held that the extension of time for payment of Court fee under Section 149 CPC is a matter between the party, who is liable to pay the Court fee and the Court and that the opposite party cannot have anything to say.

5. In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, it shall be no longer open to the revision petitioner/defendant to contend that the order granting extension of time for payment of deficit Court fee should be recalled. Suppose the revision petitioner/defendant had chosen to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the said order, such petition would have been decided on its own merits. But, here