This is an application under S. 115, Civil P. G. on which a Rule was issued on the plaintiff opposite-party to show cause why the order dated 11-8-1951 of the Munsiff of Gauhati restoring Title Suit No. 3 of 1950 should not be set aside. [Q] Suit No. 3 of 1950 was filed by the Opposite Party Bhowrilal Seraogi in the Court of the Mun­siff at Gauhati on 6-1-1950 valuing the relief at Ks. 845-15-0. Defendant 3 took an objection to the valuation and after an enquiry in course of which evidence was adduced by the parties, the learned Munsiff by his order dated 25-1-1951 held that the suit should be valued at Ks. 1,732 and the plaintiff was required to pay an additional court-fee of Bs. 72. On 31-1-1951, the plaintiff's lawyer filed a petition praying for time to file an amended plaint as well as the additional court-fee on which time was extended up to 8-2-1951. On 8-2-1951 the plaintiff defaulted in appearance and his pleader's prayer for further extension of time for putting in the requisites was rejected and the suit was dismissed for plaintiff's default. On 3-3 1951, the plaintiff applied for restoration of the suit under 0. 9, B. 4, Civil P. C. and a miscellaneous pro­ceeding i. e. Misc. Case No 58 of 1951 was started on the basis of that application. That proceeding was also struck off on 28-4-1951 due to want of steps by the plaintiff. On 8-5-1951 the plaintiff made a further appli­cation purported to be one under S. 151, Civil P. C., praying for restoration of the original suit by vacating the order dated 8-2-1951. On H-8-1951 the learned Munsiff restored the suit (Suit No. 8/1950) and accepted the amended plaint and additional court-fee supplied by the plaintiff. De­fendant 3 Atul Krishna Banerjee has moved this Court challenging the validity of the order of the learned Munsiff dated 11-8-1951 on the ground that no proceeding under 0. 9, B. 4, Civil P. C , was maintainable in the present case i. e., against an order of rejection of a plaint under 0. 7, B. 11, Civil P. C., and that an application under S. 151, Civil P. C., would not lie against such an order. [3] Mr. 9, B. 4, Civil P. C , was maintainable in the present case i. e., against an order of rejection of a plaint under 0. 7, B. 11, Civil P. C., and that an application under S. 151, Civil P. C., would not lie against such an order. [3] Mr. Das appearing for the petitioner has relied in support of his contention on two of the decisions of the Calcutta High Court reported in S. M. Base v. Hafiz Mohd. Fateh Nasib, A. I. R. 1934 cal. 623 and Sarat Chandra v. Mrityunjay Bay, 62 Cal. 61. In my opinion, these two cases lay down the correct proposition in law and in my view neither a proceeding under 0. 9, B. 4, Civil P. C., nor a petition under S. 151, Civil P. C., would be competent under such circum­stances. Order 9, E. 4, Civil P. C., relates to laches of Br. 2 and 3 of 0. 9, Civil P. C., and it has nothing to do with an order passed under 0. 7, B. 11, Civil P. C., relating to rejection of a plaint which amounts to a decree and is appeal­able. There may be some dispute as to whether a review petition under 0. 47, B. 1, Civil P. C , would be competent but there is no doubt that the order rejecting the plaint can be appealed against. It is further provided under 0. 7, E. 13, Civil P. C., that the plaintiff can bring a fresh suit after the plaint is rejected for not supplying the required court-fee. In this case the order dated 8-2-1951 indicates that the suit was dismissed for non-payment of court-fees and for not putting in the amended plaint. This is clearly an order under E. 11 (c) of O. 7, Civil P. C., and I cannot accept the contention on behalf of the Opposite Party that this order was not one under cl. (c) of O. 7, B. 11. The relief against the order dated 8-2-1951 available to the plaintiff was there­fore two-fold : he might either have brought a fresh suit or he could have appealed against that order, and he not having chosen to avail either of these legal remedies, his application under S. 151, Civil P. C., would not lie. (c) of O. 7, B. 11. The relief against the order dated 8-2-1951 available to the plaintiff was there­fore two-fold : he might either have brought a fresh suit or he could have appealed against that order, and he not having chosen to avail either of these legal remedies, his application under S. 151, Civil P. C., would not lie. [4l It has been contended on behalf of the op­posite party that the court-fees and the amended plaint having once been accepted by the learned Munsiff, it ought to be treated as sufficient com­pliance with the order of the learned Munsiff and the order dated 11-8-1951 restoring the suit on acceptance of these requisites should be treated as a valid order under S. 151, Civil P. C., and Mr. Sen relied on two of the reported cases Bachan Singh v. Dasrath Singh, A. I. B. 1935 ALL. 985 and Munshi Bam v. Sun Life Assurance Co., Canada, A. I, B. 1944 Oudh 327. These two cases are, however, fairly distinguishable from the pre­sent case. In Bachan Singh v. Dasarath Singh, A. I. E. 1935 ALL. 985 the court-fee was paid beyond the period granted for so doing - but the suit was restored to original number on the deficit court-fee being paid, by an order par porting to be one under s. 151, Civil P. C. In Munshi Bam v. Sun Life Assurance Co., Canada, A. i. E. 1944 Oudh 327-the lower Court refused to ac­cept the court-fee paid with an application for res­toration of the suit but the High Court in revision permitted the trial Court to accept the Court-fee tendered and treat the petition as a fresh plaint presented under O. 7, B. 13, Civil P. G. In this case, no court-fee was tendered along with the petition for restoration of the plaint nor a prayer made for appropriating the court-fee al­ready deposited towards a fresh plaint presented under 0. 7, B. 13, Civil P. C., but the plaintiff only signified his consent to deposit the court-fee on hi 3 prayer being granted for restoration of the suit either under 0. 9, E. 4, Civil P. C., or under S. 151, Civil P. 0. These two decisions have there­fore, no application to the circumstances of the present case. Mr. 7, B. 13, Civil P. C., but the plaintiff only signified his consent to deposit the court-fee on hi 3 prayer being granted for restoration of the suit either under 0. 9, E. 4, Civil P. C., or under S. 151, Civil P. 0. These two decisions have there­fore, no application to the circumstances of the present case. Mr. Sen had placed before me the decision re­ported in Anant Prasad Singh v. Chunnu Tiwari, A. I E. 1939 ALL. 452 - and there the learned Judge had decided more on facts than on law. [5] Mr. Sen further contended that the High Court should not interfere in revision with an order under S. 151, Civil P. C., and he relied on two of the reported cases-Dindayal v. Hara Prasad, A. I. B. 1934 Cal. 780 and Sarat Chandra v. Mitra Mukerjee & Co., A. I. E. 1927 Cal. 420 in support of his contention. There is no discussion of the principle in A. I. B. 1934 Gal. 780 and there is nothing in A. I. B. 1927 cal. 420 in principle that I do not agree which, - but there is ample margin when the High Court- can inter­fere in revision against an order passed under S. 151, Civil P. C , under certain circumstances. It is now practically a settled law that an order under S. 151, Civil P. C., can be interfered with in revision when the Court below refuses or fails to, exercise the discretion properly and the cir­cumstances have to be examined in each case to see whether the discretion has been properly exer­cised and within the limits prescribed by law. This point was a subject for consideration in the case reported in Sarat Chandra v. Mrityunjay Bay, 62 Cal. 61 and the order passed under S. 151 was interfered with in revision. I agree with this view and hold that the order dated 11-8-1951 purporting to be one under S. 151 is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is vacated and the order dated 8-2-1951 is restored with the conse­quence that the plaint stands rejected. [6] The rule is made absolute but in the cir­cumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.