JUDGMENT : Stanley, C.J.:— The suit winch has given rise to this appeal was ore for pre-emption, and was instituted on the last day allowed by limitation for the filing of a suit. The plaint was insufficiently stamped, but this insufficiency was not discovered in the Court of first instance. That Court decreed the plaintiff's claim. An appeal was preferred, and at the hearing of the appeal the objection was raised that the plaint was insufficiently stamped, and that, in as much as the period allowed by limitation for the presentation of a valid plaint, had expired, the suit failed and the appeal must be allowed. The mistake in regard to the stamp was not a mistake of the Court or any officer of the Court. It was a mistake on the part of the plaintiff, attributable to him. The learned District Judge, when his attention was directed to the insufficiency of the stamp, directed the plaintiff to make, good the deficiency, and this was done ill the course of a week. The hearing of the appeal was then proceeded with, with the result that the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation, in as much as there was no valid plaint upon the file within the time allowed by limitation. A second appeal was preferred to this Court, with the result that the decision of the lower appellate Court was reversed on the ground, as appears by the judgment, that the District Judge, when he directed payment of the deficiency in the court fee, acted under section 28 of the Court Fees Act of 1870, and that, therefore, his direction, which was complied with, validated any defect due to the insufficiency of the stamp on the plaint. We are unable to agree with our learned brother in this view of the question. It has been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Balkaran Rai v. Gobind Nath Tiwari, [1890] I.L.R., 12 All., 129. that the mistake or inadvertence referred to in section 28 of the Court Fees Act is a mistake or inadvertence on the part of the Court or its officers. There was no such mistake in this case. Therefore section 28 does not apply. that the mistake or inadvertence referred to in section 28 of the Court Fees Act is a mistake or inadvertence on the part of the Court or its officers. There was no such mistake in this case. Therefore section 28 does not apply. This being so, it appears to us there was clearly no valid plaint upon the file within the time prescribed by limitation and the plaintiffs suit therefore failed. A similar question to the one before the Court was decided in several recent cases, and amongst others in the cases of Munro v. The Cawnpore Municipal Board, [1889] I.L.R., 12 All., 57., Muhammad Ahmad v. Muhammad Siraj-ud-din, [1901] I.L.R., 23 All., 423. and Jagram v. Chatarpal, [1904] A.W.N., 133.. The learned Judge of this Court relies upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Valambal Ammal v. Vythilinga Mudaliar, [1900] I.L.R., 24 Mad., 331.. We may point out, however, that the Madras High Court has not taken the same view of section 28 of the Court Fees Act as was adopted by the Full Bench of this Court. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the learned Judge of this Court, and restore the decree of the District Judge with costs.