( 1 ) THE respondent/plaintiff is an endorsed consignee of a railway receipt whereunder M/s. Vijaya Trading Company booked at Dronachellam Railway Station 660 tins of groundnut oil for Sakti. It was a wagon load consignment and one transhipment en route was necessary. The consignment was received at Sakti on 13-1-1968 and admittedly five tins were found empty while 20 tins were leaking. There was short delivery of 222 Kgs. of oil which the respondent valued at RS. 1924. 25 paise. Notices under Section 78-B of the Railways Act and Section 80 of the Civil P. C. were served on the appellant before filing the suit. In those notices, it was claimed that Railway administration concerned must disclose the manner in which the consignment was dealt with during transit. When the suit was filed, this demand was reiterated in the plaint and again disclosure was sought for. During the proceedings, a notice was also served on the appellant requiring production of certain documents. Specific defence was raised on behalf of the appellant that the consignment was defectively packed and that such defective condition was noted in writing by the consignor's Agent on the forwarding note. It was, therefore, pleaded that the tins were old and used and were not tied to each other by rope and leaked as no dunnage was provided in between the tins. The damage is said to be the direct consequence of such defective packing. The allegation as to the negligence and misconduct in handling the consignment on the part of the Railway administration was denied. In para 8 of the written statement specific averment is as follows:

"the suit consignment having been booked at owner's risk as also on account of the non-compliance of tariff rules, the defendant is not liable to give any disclosure to the plaintiff as sought for. "

A copy of the forwarding note was filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the lower Appellate Court allowed the plaintiff's claim and decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court, in para 15 of the impugned judgment observed that the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rupees 1924. 25 paise and that this finding arrived at by the trial Court was not challenged before it.

( 2 ) IN this Court the second appeal was filed on 28th June, 1976 on a court-fee stamp of Rs. 5. 00. The balance of the court-fee was paid subsequently on 9-71976 and this Court on recommendation made by the Taxing Officer certifying the delayed payment as bona fide, condoned the delay in payment of deficit court-fee by order dated 1-11-1976. Admittedly, this order condoning the delay under Section 149, Civil P. C. was passed ex parte without notice to and in absence of the respondent. Shri P. G. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, therefore, urged that he has a right to challenge the condonation of delay in payment of deficit court-fee, Learned counsel submitted that the explanation offered by the appellant for delay in payment of court-fee far from satisfactory or bona fide and, therefore, the appeal should only be deemed to be filed on 9-7-1976 when the deficit court-fee was made good. Section 149, Civil P. C. is as follows:

"whether 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. "

This section vests the court with a discretion to permit a person at any stage of the proceedings to pay whole or part of the court-fees as may be payable and if such permission is granted and the court-fee is paid, the effect is as if such fee had been paid at first instance. This section is enabling and permits validation of a document retrospectivel