JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th August, 1968 passed by I Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 326 of 1968. 2. Parties learned counsel have been heard. 3. The matter is in a very narrow compass. On 1-1-1968, the appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,084 on the basis of pronote and receipt. Adhesive -court-fee stamp of Rs. 1.50 P. only was affixed on the plaint. The office reported that there was a deficiency of Rs. 548 on the plaint. The trial court directed the appellant to make good the deficiency in court-fee within 10 days. On 11-1-1968, it was found that the appellant had not taken any steps. Consequently, the trial court passed an order that the appellant should take steps within 15 days and that the appellants counsel be informed. On 27-1-1968, the appellant paid court-fee of Rs. 100 only and made an application for further time of two months for the ground that he was not able to arrange for the full court-fee. The trial court dismissed that application saying that there was no justification for grant of more time. Ultimately, thereafter the trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. This order amounted to a decree under Section 2 (2) C.P.C. The appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge which was decided by I Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge on 30-8-68. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that financial difficulties in procuring the amount of requisite court-fee could not be regarded as sufficient ground for granting or extending time to make good the deficiency in court-fee. 4. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that financial difficulties in procuring the amount of requisite court-fee could not be regarded as sufficient ground for granting or extending time to make good the deficiency in court-fee. 4. Section 6 (1) of the Court-fees Act as amended in this State lays down: - "No document of any of the kinds specified as chargeable in the first or second schedule shall be filed, unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said Schedules as the proper fee for such document." Sub-section (2) then provides: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (1), a court may receive a plaint in respect of which an insufficient fee has been paid, but no such plaint shall be acted upon unless the plaintiff makes good the deficiency in court-fee within such time as may from time to time be fixed by the court." 5. It will thus be seen that the court can extend time for making good the deficiency in court-fee from time to time. Similar provision exists in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 149 C.P.C. lays down that - "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 Act." This section clearly shows that the matter is entirely in the discretion of the Court to allow time for the payment of court-fee payable on the plaint or any other documents chargeable with court-fee under the Court-fees Act. 6. In the present case the Court granted time to the appellant twice suo motu. On 27-1-1968, the appellant paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 and made an application for the first time to allow him two months time to pay up the court-fee. The trial court rejected the application simply on the ground that there -was no justification for grant of more time. It will be noticed that in the application the appellant clearly stated that he had been able to make arrangement of payment of court-fee to the extent of Rs. 100 only. The trial court rejected the application simply on the ground that there -was no justification for grant of more time. It will be noticed that in the application the appellant clearly stated that he had been able to make arrangement of payment of court-fee to the extent of Rs. 100 only. In other words he had not been able to make arrangement for the full amount of court-fee payable on the plaint. There is absolutely no material on record to indicate from which the Court could infer that the reason given in the application was not justified. 7. The order does not indicate that the plaintiff-appellants counsel was heard prior to the rejection of the application. It is a well-settled principle of justice that before an adverse order is passed, the party concerned should be heard. In the present case, record clearly shows that the plaintiffs counsel was not even heard before rejecting the application. In the matters in which the court has been given discretion, the discretion should normally be exercised in favour of the litigant and that too reasonably and liberally. In the present case, the trial court has not at all observed these preliminary principles in exercising the discretion while considering the appellants application for further time. 8. For all what has been stated above, it is clear that the trial court committed a gross error in rejecting the application. The trial court should have better allowed the application. It is noteworthy that the plaint was filed on 1-1-1968 and on this plaint a court-fee of Rs. 549-50 was chargeable and the plaint was rejected within a month of this order. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. The rule, that financial difficulty in procuring the amount of requisite court-fee cannot be considered a sufficient ground, cannot be applied with all strictness in each and every case. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 30-8-68 passed by the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 326 of 1968 are set aside and the order of the trial court dated 27-1-1968 is also set aside. The appellant is granted two months time from this day to make good the deficiency in court-fee before the trial court. Thereafter the plaint shall be restored to its original number and the case decided according to law. The appellant is granted two months time from this day to make good the deficiency in court-fee before the trial court. Thereafter the plaint shall be restored to its original number and the case decided according to law. 10. In the unusual circumstances of the case, no order as to costs incurred in this court is made. 11. On an application being made by the appellants counsel, a copy of this judgment will be supplied to him within a week. 12. The office will send down the record within three weeks.