In these three appeals, learned Single Judge has referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench. The said question is : "Whether in the light of the Rule 18 (1) in Chapter V of Gauhati High Court Rules, the Registrar is entitled to allow time to the appellant for depositing the deficit court fee ?" 2. For the purpose of deciding the above question, the facts may be briefly stated. The memoranda of three appeals were filed with a fixed court free of Rs. 10/- and an office note was put up that appeals were not properly stamped and thereafter, it was placed before the Deputy Registrar who allowed one month time to deposit the deficit court fee. Thereafter, the matter was laid before the Bench for passing judicial orders. A Division Bench of this Court took note of the fact that another Division Bench gave a direction to the Registrar to give a decision as a Taxing Officer regarding court fee payable in accordance with Gauhati High Court Rules. Registrar decided the matter, but the correctness was challenged before another Bench. But in the meantime a Single Bench held that appeal was properly stamped and the decision of the Apex Court was not applicable (AIR 1985 SC 1976). But the office gave another note that in view of the judgment passed in other two appeals, namely MA (F) Nos. 17 and 18 of 1988, the appellants of the present appeals have to pay the ad valorem court fee. Again the matter was placed before the Single Bench, but no decision was given and court fee as per above judgment was also not paid. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Regi­strar, Agartala Bench and allowed one month time to file the deficit court fee which was not done and the deficit court fee was paid after expiry of the above period of one month though there was no specific order of the Court or of the Registrar. Therefore, the present reference. 3. We have heard Mr. SN Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. DK Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents. Also heard Mr. UB Saha, learned Govt. Advocate, Tripura. 4. Our attention has been drawn to Rule 2 under Chapter II and Rules 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18 (2) under Chapter V of the Gauhati High Court Rules. We have heard Mr. SN Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. DK Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents. Also heard Mr. UB Saha, learned Govt. Advocate, Tripura. 4. Our attention has been drawn to Rule 2 under Chapter II and Rules 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18 (2) under Chapter V of the Gauhati High Court Rules. Our attention has been drawn also to section 4 of the Court Pees Act and sections 148 and 149 CPC. 5. Rule 2 under Chapter II of the Gauhati High Court Rules, inter alia provides the duties and powers in relation to civil and criminal matters to the Registrar of the High Court. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 2 provides that Regi­strar shall have a power to dispose of all matters relating to court-fees (other than appeals the subject matter of which is the amount of court-fee payable) and to the service of notices or other processes. Therefore, it appears that the Registrar cannot deal with appeals, the subject matter of which is the court fee payable. This exception has been provided in view of the provisions laid down in the Court Fees Act as well as Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Now let us consider the rule referred to above under Chapter V of the Gauhati High Court Rules. Rule 8, inter alia, provides that no memora­ndum of appeal from an appellate decree or from original or appellate order presented in person by any party to the appeal shall be registered without an order of a Single Bench before which the party presenting the appeal shall appear in person. Rule 10 inter alia, provides that when a memorandum of appeal is not in proper form and or is not accompanied by the necessary copies of papers, the Registrar may allow time within which such memoran­dum must be amended, and/or the necessary papers filed, or may lay the same before the Division Bench for orders. It also provides that if a memorandum of appeal is presented for admission without copies of the judgment and order, it shall be returned to the Advocate or party presenting it or there-afeer, if such copies are filed after period of limitation has expired, the memorandum shall be presented direct to the Division Bench. 7. It also provides that if a memorandum of appeal is presented for admission without copies of the judgment and order, it shall be returned to the Advocate or party presenting it or there-afeer, if such copies are filed after period of limitation has expired, the memorandum shall be presented direct to the Division Bench. 7. Rule 11 lay down the grounds to be stated in the memo of appeal in case of absence of evidence or admission to support the decree. Rule 12 is for the purpose of recording the date of limitation while presenting the appeal and we need not consider this rule. Rule 13 is regarding appeal filed by forma pauperis. All these Rules have been placed before us to show the powers of the Registrar under Gauhati High Court Rules. 8. Now let us quote sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of the Gauhati High Court Rules to which the learned Single Judge has made a reference. The said rule runs as follows: "(2) If the stamp reporter, on a memorandum being presented to him, finds that it has been insufficiently stamped, he shall make a note thereon as regards the deficiency and shall return it, with as little delay as possible, to the Advocate or the party refiles it having supplied the deficit court-fee, within the prescribed period of limitation the stamp reporter shall record a note to that effect on the memorandum which shall then be admitted." We may also quote sub-rules (3), (4) and (5) of the above Rule 18 which run as follows : "(3) The Advocate or the party to whom a memorandum is returned under clause (2) may apply to the Registrar for time to put in the requi­site court-fee. On such application being made, the Registrar, if he is satisfied that in sufficiency of the court-fee is payable, may fix a period within which the additional court-fee must be paid. In other cases or when the requisite fee is not paid within the period fixed the Registrar shall lay the matter before the Division Court for orders. On such application being made, the Registrar, if he is satisfied that in sufficiency of the court-fee is payable, may fix a period within which the additional court-fee must be paid. In other cases or when the requisite fee is not paid within the period fixed the Registrar shall lay the matter before the Division Court for orders. (4) If a memorandum which has been returned under clause (2) and for filing for which no time under clause (3) has been fixed is re-filed, sufficiently stamped, after the period of limitation has expired, it shall be presented direct to the Registrar and the latter may pass an order for the admission thereof or lay it before the Division Court for orders according as, in his opinion, a case as to mistake or referred to in clause (3) has been made out or not. (5) An application made under clause (3) or a memorandum of appeal refiled under clause (4) must be accompanied by an affidavit expla­ining the insufficiency, unless the insufficiency is due to a mistake which is apparent on the face of the papers filed." 9. From reading of the above sub-rules of Rule 18, it is clear that initially at the time of filing of the memo of appeal with deficit court fee, the Registrar if he satisfied may grant time within which the additional court fee must be paid. Such an order can be passed by the Registrar on an application being made by the appellant. Sub-rule (3) also provides that in other cases where requisite court fee is not paid within the period fixed, the Registrar shall lay the matter before Division Bench for orders. 10. Thus reading Rule 18 we hold that if memorandum of appeal is insufficiently stamped, the Stamp Reporter shall make a note thereon and shall return the memorandum of appeal to the Advocate or the party presen­ting it and thereafter if the deficit court fee is paid within time, the Stamp Reporter shall record a note to that effect and the memorandum shall then be admitted. Further an option has been given to the Advocate or the party filing the memorandum of appeal to apply to the Registrar for time to pay the requisite court fee and if the Registrar is satisfied on the causes shown he may fix a period within which the additional court fee must be paid and if it is not paid Registrar shall lay the matter before the Division Bench for orders. 11. Now we have to read the Rules with reference to section 148 and 149 CPC. Section 148 and 149 CPC run as follows : "148 Enlargement of time. - Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. 149. Power to make up deficiency of court fees. - Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to court-fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such court fee and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance." From section 149 we find that if the court fee has not been paid, the Court may in discretion, in any stage, allow the person. by whom such fees is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, and upon such payment, it shall be deemed that court fee has been paid in the first instance. 12. Therefore, reading section 149 and above Rule 18 we hold that if the memorandum of appeal is presented to Registrar with deficit court fee, he may grant time on sufficient causes being shown only once and thereafter he has to lay the matter before the Division Bench of the Court. 12. Therefore, reading section 149 and above Rule 18 we hold that if the memorandum of appeal is presented to Registrar with deficit court fee, he may grant time on sufficient causes being shown only once and thereafter he has to lay the matter before the Division Bench of the Court. Court may by exer­cising powers under section 149 CPC grant time and if court fee is paid within time granted, it shall be deemed that the memo of appeal was presented with proper court fee on the date of presentation of memo of appeal on the first date. 13. In the present appeals from the facts stated above, it is absolutely clear that deficit court fee was not paid within time fixed by the Court. Subse­quently, Registrar granted time which was not in accordance with law as he has no power to do so after the matter is taken to cognizance by the Court and in view of the Rule 18 of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with section 149 CPC. Accordingly, question referred to this Bench is answered. 14. Now there is no dispute that subsequently deficit Court fee was paid. If we consider the provisions of section 148 CPC, we find that Court has power to enlarge the period of time fixed or granted by the Court earlier even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. Therefore, on this technical ground that court fee was not paid in terms of Rule 18 of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with section 149 CPC, we are of the opinion that the appeals cannot be dismissed and it shall be deemed that Court has granted time subsequently. We say so as the Courts in the country are res­pected for deciding disputes between the parties on merit and not on technical ground. We are not suggesting that procedure established by law and/or the procedure to be followed in proceedings before the Court should be violated. But at the same time procedures are the handmaid of justice. Procedural law should not be placed at such a high pedestal to cause obstruction in rendering even handed justice to the parties. If there is conflict between procedural law and justice, procedural law must be given the back seat. Technical mistake cannot stand and close the path of justice. But at the same time procedures are the handmaid of justice. Procedural law should not be placed at such a high pedestal to cause obstruction in rendering even handed justice to the parties. If there is conflict between procedural law and justice, procedural law must be given the back seat. Technical mistake cannot stand and close the path of justice. After all section 149 CPC is an exception to rule contained in section 4 and 6 of Court Fees Act. It has to be read as proviso to section 4 of Court Fees Act (See Mannan vs. Chhotka, AIR 1971 SC 1374 ). Further where in an appeal deficit court fee is paid beyond the time fixed, but the Court receives the fee and admits the appeal, the Court has impliedly extended the time. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 882 (Mahanth vs. Ganga) when time has once been granted and even if the order is peremptory that upon default in payment of deficit court fees within the time fixed the plaint shall stand rejected, the Court has jurisdiction to extend the time further when the application is made before or after expiry of the time originally fixed. Further time should always be extended in favour of the litigant except in case of contamacy or positive malafides. A liberal view is always to be adopted. In this case the Registrar wrongly extended the time, but that should not be deemed to be the death blow to the appeal. The matter can be looked from another angle, an act of Court should not prejudice any one. Therefore, we direct the learned Single Judge to proceed with the appeals as we have held that subsequent payment of court fee shall be deemed to have been paid within time. 15. Though Mr. Biswas has placed before us three decisions, namely, two decisions of the High Court of Allahabad and one decision of the Orissa High Court, we are of the opinion that we need not consider the ratio laid down in the above decisions as the present reference has to be decided in terms of Gauhati High Court Rules and provisions of CPC. The reference is answered accordingly.