JUDGMENT : 1. The learned Judge has dismissed this appeal holding that the deficiency in court, fees though made good within the time allowed by the Court of first instance, does not save the case from limitation. He has held that the Court of first instance in allowing time to make good the deficiency did not exercise a judicial discretion. There is nothing to show that the Court of first instance did not exercise a judicial discretion. Various matters might have been brought to the notice of the learned Subordinate Judge which might be sufficient to explain why the full fee was not paid. 2. Under the circumstances, we do not think that the lower appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit solely upon the ground that the full court-fee was not paid on the clay the plaint was filed. With regard to the remarks the learned Judge his made about the plaint not having been the original plaint, there is no direct finding that this was the case; on the contrary, ib-would appear from the learned Judge's order which he has incorporated in his judgment that the plaint in this case was not tampered with in any way. Under the circumstances we must allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and remand the case to that Court with directions to re-admit the appeal under its original number and proceed to determine it according to law. Costs here and heretofore will be in the discretion of the Court below.