JUDGMENT Misra and Kaul, JJ. - This appeal was filed on the 5th of January, 1945, with an office report that there was a deficiency of Rs 4,988-2-0 in the court-fee. An application u/s 149 C. P C. read with Section 6 (2) of the Court Fees Act and Order 7 rule 11 (c) C. P. C. was presented along with the appeal that sufficient time should be given to the appellant to make good the deficiency in court fee on the me- morandum of appeal. The following order was passed on the aforesaid application: Para 3 of the application shows that the trans- feree, Kunwar Shambhoo Krishna Narain after taking the transfer took no interest in the case nor did he spend any money, and I am not prepared to believe the statement, in view of the statement made in para 3, that the financier backed out at the last moment. This application has been put in to save limitation, as today is the last day, on a court- fee stamp'of Rs. 15. The applicant had one , hundred and thirty days to make arrangements for money I allow her time up to the 6th February, 1945, to make good the deficiency in the court-fee. No lurther extension will be granted. 2. The appeal was ordered to be put up for admission when the deficiency had been made good. On the 6th February, 1945, the appellant deposited court-fee stamps for Rs. 500 only. There was still a deficiency of Rs. 4,4c 8-2 0. An application was moved for the acceptance of the part payment of the coutr-fee and for extension of the timu for payment of the remaining amount. The court-fee stamps of fts 500 was ordered to be accepted and the appellant was given two months' lime to make good the balance. The office reported on the 7th of April, 1945, that co action had been taken. One month's further extension was given and it was ordered that no further extension would be granted. No steps were taken by the learned Counsel, and the period of ex- tention expired. Inspite of this stop order the appellant was allowed fifteen days further time and the learned Counsel under- took not to ask for any further extention. The order made it explicit, that no further extention would be granted in any case. No steps were taken by the learned Counsel, and the period of ex- tention expired. Inspite of this stop order the appellant was allowed fifteen days further time and the learned Counsel under- took not to ask for any further extention. The order made it explicit, that no further extention would be granted in any case. The period of fifteen days was not availed of by the appellant with the result that the office again reported on the 31st July that no action had been taken. On' the 2nd of August, 1945, the appellant sought to depo- sit Rs. 2,500 out of total deficiency of court-fee amounting to Rs. 4,488-2-0 and prayed that a fortnight's time for depositing the balance may be granted. It was considered desirable that the entire deficiency should be made good, and in order to en- able the appellant to do so, two week-; time was again given. The material pjrtion of the order is in these terms : We think, however, that in the c'u omittances of the case two weeks' further tim-3 should be granted to the appHcmt for miking good the entire amount of deficiency in court-fee ana in the event of her not being able to nuke it good, this appeal shall stand dismissed. 3. There was again default and the record has been put up bsfore us with a-i office report in that connection. The appellant seeks for extension of thirty six hours in order to enable her to purchase the court- fee stamps. 4. We are of opinion that the order of the 2nd of August 1945, saying in the event of the appellant nat being able to make good the deficiency, this appeal shall stand dis- missed has already operated as a dismissal, and there is no further jurisdiction to ex- tend the time prescribed by that order for payment of thi balance of the cou't-fee. Our attention has been invited by the learned Counsel for the appellant to two cases, namely, Guruswamy Nayudu v. Naraycma Nayudu 1932 M W N 655 and Surajmal Marwari and Another Vs. Bhubaneshwar Prasad and Others, AIR 1940 Patna 50 . The order passed', in both those cases was couched in a language very different to the one in which the order of 2nd of August, 194-5, was made. Bhubaneshwar Prasad and Others, AIR 1940 Patna 50 . The order passed', in both those cases was couched in a language very different to the one in which the order of 2nd of August, 194-5, was made. Whether the Court still retains jurisdiction over the suit or not must, we think, be determined by the tsnns of the preceding order. In the Madras casa cited for the appellant, security for costs was ordered to be furnished by a specified date failing which it was faid that "the appeal would be rejected." In the case decided by the Patna High Court the Court bad decreed the plaintiffs' suit and ordered them to pay deficit court-fee bv saying that "the plaintiffs must file it within a fortinght otherwise they will not be entitled to have the aforesaid decree and the suit will be dismissed." On this order the learned Judges held that the Court still retained jurisdiction over the proceedings. 5. On the contrary there are cases of this Court which clearly apply to the present case. In Surajpal Singh v. Deo Kali AIR (SIC) Oudh 481, a conditional order had been passed on an application to set aside an ex p.irte decree, conditioning that if a certain amount is paid within a certain time the decree would be set aside, if not the application would stand dismissed No payment was made within the prescribid tine, and an order was passed dismissing the application. It was held that the order dismissing the application was not a fresh order but by it effect was given to the previou- conditional order. In Riighubar D.zyilv. Smkitha B.ikhsh*, another Biuch of this Court came to the same conclusion. There an amplication for restoration of an appeal dismissed in default was allowed by an order stating that if the applicant deposits a certain sum on or before a specified date, the appeal shall ba restored, otherwise it shall stind dismissed. The applicant failed to deposit that sum on the due date and it was held that th3 Ciurt had nj pDwer to restore the application or sat aside the order of dismissal. 6. In view of the order dated the 2nd August, 1 J+5, this appeal already stands dismissed. There is no question therefore for extention of time. The application is rejected.