Judgment Tarkeshwar Nath, J. 1. This application by the plaintiff decree-holder under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 13-1-1966 restoring Miscellaneous Case No. 27 of 1964. which was dismissed on 11-12-1965. 2. The facts giving rise to this application are these: The plaintiff petitioner obtained a compromise decree against the defendant opposite party on 25-5-1962 in Money Suit No. 256 of 1960, and certain instalments were fixed with the condition that if the opposite party would fail to pay any one of the instalments, the petitioner would be entitled to execute the decree for the entire claim. The opposite party made default in the payment of the instalments and the petitioner filed Execution case No. 260 of 1962 against the opposite party for executing the decree. The opposite party filed a petition for the grant of instalments, but it was dismissed for default. The opposite party filed another application with a similar prayer, but this also was rejected on 9-1-1964. The petitioner then applied for warrant of arrest of the opposite party, but the latter filed an application on 22-2-1964 alleging that he had paid a sum of Rs. 3,000 to the petitioner and he wanted that the said payment should be recorded in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 27 of 1964. On 11-12-1965. the opposite party filed an application in the said Miscellaneous case for time on the ground of his illness, but the Court rejected that petition called out the Miscellaneous case and dismissed it by order dated 11-12-1965 as no one appeared for the opposite party On the same date the opposite party filed an application for restoration of the Miscellaneous case and recalling the order of dismissal on the ground that his lawyer was actually giving evidence in another Court when the Miscellaneous case was called out and by the time the lawyer turned up the order of dismissal of the Miscellaneous case had already been passed. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to this petition. The learned Munsif heard this petition and he by his order dated 13-1-1966. restored the Miscellaneous case to its original file and recalled the Miscellaneous case to it original file and recalled order dated 11-12-1965. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to this petition. The learned Munsif heard this petition and he by his order dated 13-1-1966. restored the Miscellaneous case to its original file and recalled the Miscellaneous case to it original file and recalled order dated 11-12-1965. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed this application in revision in this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged, in the first instance that the order dated 11-12-1965 dismissing the Miscellaneous No. 27 of 1964 was an appealable order and hence the remedy of the opposite party was to file an appeal against the order and not a petition under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall the order of dismissal. He has referred to Raghubir Narayan Singh V/s. Soti Lal Sahu. AIR 1933 Pat 634 ft was held in that case that an order refusing a certificate of payment was appealable The contention was that an execution case was pending against the judgment-debtor opposite party and the allegation of the opposite party that he had made certain payment outside Court amounted to an objection to the execution of the decree within the meaning of Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court refused to grant a certificate of payment and dismissed the Miscellaneous case and that order of dismissal was. in fact the order of dismissed of the objection under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was appealable as a decree. This contention must be accepted as correct to this extent that the order dated 11-12-1965 dismissing the Miscellaneous case was appealable, But the question remains for consideration at to whether the Munsif could exercise his inherent powers under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall the order of dismissal and I would deal with this aspect in the following paragraph. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the Munsif could not pass an order under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure referred to Haddu Sahu v Haji Zamal Mahomed Sahib, AIR 1934 Mad 699 (1). Following the decisions of the Full Bench in Alaga Sundaram V/s. Pichuvier, AIR 1929 Mad 757 (FB) and Aruna-chalam V/s. Veerappa Chettiar. AIR 1931 Mad 656 , it was held that an application under Order 21, Rule 58. Following the decisions of the Full Bench in Alaga Sundaram V/s. Pichuvier, AIR 1929 Mad 757 (FB) and Aruna-chalam V/s. Veerappa Chettiar. AIR 1931 Mad 656 , it was held that an application under Order 21, Rule 58. Code of Civil Procedure, was a proceeding in execution and the provisions of Order 9. Rule 13 were not applicable to such a proceeding. There was a further observation that the Full Bench decisions indicated that Courts had no inherent power to set aside orders of dismissal for default passed in respect of such applications under Order 21, Rule 58 The questions which arose in the first case before the Full Bench were whether (1) the provisions of Order 9. Civil P. C., applied to proceedings instituted under Rule 97 or 100, Order 21 of the Code and (2) whether otherwise the Court had inherent power to set aside the dismissal for default of an application made under Rule 97 or 100 where the ends of justice rendered it necessary to do so. Both the points referred to the Full Bench were answered in the negative. In the next case, reported in AIR 1931 Mad 656 (FB) the question was whether Order 9. Rule 13 applied to such execution proceedings under Order 21 as also fell within Sec. 47 of the Code. The answer to this question was in the negative. In none of these decisions a question arose as to whether it was open to a person to seek his remedy under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure if his objection under Sec. 47 of the Code was rejected and he had the remedy to file an appeal against the order rejecting his objection. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has drawn my attention to an order dated 2-2-1963 passed in Misc Judl. Case No 1090 of 1962 (Pat) Ram Pravesh Rai v. Nageshwar Prasad Sah. That Miscellaneous Judicial case was filed under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the cross-objection which stood dismissed on account of the default in payment of the deficit court-fee and non-compliance with a peremptory order passed by the Bench for the said payment. Case No 1090 of 1962 (Pat) Ram Pravesh Rai v. Nageshwar Prasad Sah. That Miscellaneous Judicial case was filed under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the cross-objection which stood dismissed on account of the default in payment of the deficit court-fee and non-compliance with a peremptory order passed by the Bench for the said payment. One of the objections on behalf of the appellants to the restoration of the cross-objection was that the remedy available to the respondents (petitioners) for getting an order of dismissal of the cross-objection set aside was to apply for a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Patna High Court, and the application under Sec.151 was not maintainable. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanth Ram Das V/s. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882 , a Division Bench of this Court held in that Misc. Judl. Case No 1090 of 1962 (Pat) that the application under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the cross-objection was maintainable and there was no merit in the objection raised by the appellants. In the case of AIR 1961 SC 882 , the plaintiff appellant was granted three months time by the High Court to pay the court-fee for the trial Court and also for the High Court, and if the amount was not paid within the time stipulated, the appeal was to be dismissed. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the High Court could even, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151, extend the lime for the payment of the court-fee if, sufficient grounds were made out. 6. Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down fee circumstances ia which a plaint has to be rejected and according to Sec.2 of the Code the order of rejection of a plaint comes within the purview of "decree". Since such an order is a decree, an appeal would lie against an order rejecting a plaint for non-payment of fee requisite court-fee within a time fixed by the Court; but even in such cases it is open to the Court to extend the time for payment of the court-fee under its inherent powers under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is in effect the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 882 . The position thus is that although a person aggrieved by an order rejecting a plaint for non-payment of the court-fee has a remedy by way of an appeal against that order. it is open to him to apply for extension of time under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court can extend the time if sufficient grounds are made out. In the circumstances of the present case, it will not be proper to hold that simply because the defendant opposite party had a right of appeal against the order dated 11-12-1965. he could not apply for restoration of the said Miscellaneous Case No. 27 of 1964 and recalling of the order dated 11-12-1965 I thus do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court has no power under Sec.151 to restore the Miscellaneous Case No 27 of 1964. 7. As regards the merits, the Munsif was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for non-appearance of the lawyer of the opposite party when the case was called out for hearing and he observed that the conduct of the opposite party was bona fide. This conclusion of the learned Munsif cannot be assailed in this application in revision. 8. In the result this application fails and is dismissed, but without costs. 9. The Munsif is directed to expedite the disposal of Miscellaneous Case No. 27 of 1964.