JUDGMENT 1. This is a second appeal against an order rejecting a plaint under sec. 54, C.C.P. The Plaintiff purchased a certain property at a sale for arrears of Government Revenue on the 25th October 1887. The sale was confirmed on the 31st October 1888 and, according to the statement made in the plaint, possession was delivered to him by the Collector on the 29th November 1888, The suit was to recover certain lands from the hands of the principal Defendant Safatullah, who, it was alleged in the plaint, was one of the defaulters. The plaint was originally presented on the 30th October 1900, but upon insufficient stamp, and the Munsif thereupon ordered that the deficit Court-fee stamps should be put in within seven days. Such deficit Court-fee stamps were not, however, put in within the time appointed, but one day later, and, on the 7th November 1900, when the matter placed before the Munsif, he recorded the following order : "The plaint bearing insufficient Court-fee stamps was filed on the 30th October 1900. The deficit Court-fee stamps being paid in and the plaint, after examination, being found to be correct, it is accordingly ordered that the plaint be registered, that summonses be issued," and so forth. The Defendant being then duly summoned appeared and put in his written statement on the 12th January 1901, in' which he did not state that he was not one of the defaulters, but claimed a mourasi right in the property in question; and he pleaded that he and his father had held adverse possession for a number of years, and that, therefore, the suit could not succeed. He also pleaded that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the law of limitation. The case seems to have come up before the Court on several occasions, but on every one of these occasions, upon the application of one of either of the parties, it was adjourned, and at one stage of the proceedings we find that the Defendant filed certain documentary evidence. Ultimately. on the 1st May 1901, when the matter came up for hearing, an objection seems to have been raised on behalf of the Defendant that the plaint should be rejected under sec. 54, C.C.P., because the deficit Court-fee stamps had not been put in within the week that was appointed by the Court under its order of the 30th October 1900. 54, C.C.P., because the deficit Court-fee stamps had not been put in within the week that was appointed by the Court under its order of the 30th October 1900. And the Munsif's attention being called to the decision of this Court in the case of Brahmoyi Dasi v. Andi Si ILR 27 Cal. 376 (1899), he held that the plaint must be rejected; and he accordingly did so. On appeal against this order of the Munsif, the Subordinate Judge took the same view and affirmed that order. There can be no doubt, having regard to the terms of sec. 54, C.C.P., that the plaint having been written upon a paper insufficiently stamped, and the Plaintiff having failed to supply the deficit Court-fee stamps within the time appointed by the Court, it was the bounden duty of the Court to reject the plaint; and that was the view that was accepted by this Court in the case referred to in the judgments of the Courts below. But then it would appear from the dates that we have already given that, on the 7th November 1900 when after the deficit Court-fee stamps had been put in, the plaint was examined by the Munsif, and after examination was registered, the suit was within time it having been brought within 12 years from the date when the Plaintiff was put in possession of the property purchased by him at the revenue sale. Supposing, of course, the principal Defendant Safatullah was one of the defaulters as it was alleged in the plaint, the plaint might well be regarded as if it was presented on the 7th November 1900; and if it be regarded in that light, it could not be rejected, notwithstanding what had taken place before. We do not know whether this view was presented to the Munsif by the Plaintiff. Apparently it was not; but it would seem that it was presented to the Subordinate Judge : for it was contended on behalf of the Plaintiff, who was the Appellant before that officer, that the suit was not barred by the law of limitation on the 7th November 1900. The Subordinate Judge, however, declined to go into the question of limitation, and, applying his mind simply to the terms of sec. The Subordinate Judge, however, declined to go into the question of limitation, and, applying his mind simply to the terms of sec. 54, C.C.P., and finding that the Plaintiff had not complied with the order of the Munsif of the 30th October 1900, in that he did not put in the deficit Court-fee stamps within the time appointed, he thought that he was bound to affirm the order of the Munsif, and he thereupon dismissed the appeal preferred before him. It seems to us that if the plaint be regarded as a plaint presented for the first time, as it were, on the 7th November 1900, and if, upon that date, the suit was not barred by the law of limitation, we do not see why the Plaintiff should not be entitled to ask the Court to investigate into the merits of his case. It will be borne in mind that the Defendant in his written statement did not raise the plea upon which the plaint has been rejected by both the Courts below, nor did he raise the plea that he was not one of the defaulters for whose default the revenue sale took place; but he claimed a mourasi right in the property in question. So that, upon his own view of the matter, the suit could not be altogether dismissed, but that the Plaintiff would, at any rate, be entitled to a declaration of his zamindari right in the property in question, the Defendant being bound to pay him rent for the tenure held by him. Having regard to these considerations, we think that the case should be sent back to the Court of first instance with a view that the question of limitation, as also that upon the merits, might be tried out, and we ordered accordingly. 2. At the same time, we are of opinion that the result which followed upon the Plaintiff's non-compliance with the order of the Munsif of the 30th October 1900 was due to some extent, at least to his own laches, in that he did not present the matter to the Munsif in the proper light, that is to say, he did not ask that officer to treat the plaint as if it was presented on the 7th October 1900 for the first time. In this view of the matter, we think that he should pay the costs of the Respondent in this Court.