JUDGMENT

1. Respondent is served with notice of this appeal, but he has remained absent.

2. Appellant, plaintiff in O.S. No.7602/2013 on the file of VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru has preferred this appeal feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 21.11.2019 rejecting the plaint and the Order dated 04.01.2020 dismissing the application to recall the Order dated

21.11.2019.

3. The parties to the appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience.

4. Brief and relevant facts leading to this appeal are as under:

That plaintiff has filed the instant suit initially seeking the relief of permanent injunction against defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5. Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed I.A. No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment to the plaint for converting the said suit for declaration by amending para 4(a) and prayer column as mentioned in the application. The said application came to be allowed by the Trial Court on 02.07.2018. Accordingly, plaint was amended. It was directed to the plaintiff to furnish amended plaint and fresh valuation slip. Plaintiff furnished the amended plaint along with fresh valuation slip. Based upon the valuation of the suit schedule property and valuation slip, Trial Court directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee of Rs.1,20,803/- as per the office endorsement dated 26.10.2018.

Trial Court has granted sufficient time to the plaintiff to pay the said Court fee on the plaint. But plaintiff has not paid.

6. On 21.11.2019, it is observed by the Trial Court that, sufficient opportunity was given, but even after lapse of one year, plaintiff had not deposited said court fee and the plaint has been rejected.

7. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an application before the Trial Court to recall the order dated 21.11.2019. The Trial Court has dismissed the said application holding that, "there is no scope to recall the order dated 21.11.2019".

8. Plaintiff - appellant has urged that the plaintiff is very poor and was not able to collect the money within the time stipulated by the Court, and hence, he sought time to pay the deficit court fee and the Court has erroneously rejected the plaint; that the Trial Court has not afforded the opportunity to argue the case on recalling application which is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; that the plaintiff took a hand loan from his friends and obtained a Demand Draft on 04.12.2019 in the name of Registrar of City Civil Court, Bengaluru, towards payment of court fee. Along with the application, the plaintiff has produced photocopy of the D.D. Instead of accepting the said D.D., the Trial Court rejected the application. With these submissions, it is prayed to allow the appeal and permit the plaintiff to prosecute the suit by paying deficit court fee.

9. While preferring this appeal, the appellant has paid the court fee required to be paid on the plaint.

10. When this appeal is posted for admission, having regard to the facts of the case, this appeal is taken up for final disposal.

11. We have heard the arguments. Perused the materials placed on record.

12. Undisputed facts are, plaint has been rejected for non payment of Court fee and the application filed by the plaintiff to recall the order of rejection of the plaint has also been rejected as per the Order dated 04.01.2020.

13. Plaintiff has contended that when he moved an application under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated

21.11.2019 by borrowing loan from his friends, he obtained D.D. for Rs.1,20,803/- drawn on Federal Bank and submitted a photocopy along with the application. The Trial Court has rejected the said application. It is submitted that if the suit is not restored plaintiff would be put to hardship. Now plaintiff is ready to pay the deficit court fee. It is submitted that, when the plaint is