( 1 ) IN this unusual revision petitionte plaintiff and the defendant ave joined in callenging an arbitrary order made by a senior Civil Judge working in the City of Bangalore. As tis revision is filed by all the parties to the suit jointly, I propose to finally dispose of the same witout formally admitting the same. In order to appreciate the question that arises for determination, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case in the first instance. In the course of my order, i will refer to the 1st petitioner who is the plaintiff, as the plaintiff and the 2nd petitioner who is the defendant as the defendant. ( 2 ) SOME time in 1978 the plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 914 of 1978 against the defendant for recovery of certain amounts due by im under a loan transaction, e ad wit the plaintiff. On 12-6-1980, the defendant consented to a decree in the said suit and, tererfore, the said suit was decreed on that day. As required by Civil Rules of practice, the counsel for the plaintiff did not file is fee Certificate in the said suit witin 3 days from the date of the decree. But, on 16-7-1980, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. II along wit the fee Certificate under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sougt for condonation of delay in filing the Feer certificate. On I. A. No. II, the defendant also endorsed that e ad no objection for allowing the said application. Notwitstanding the same, somewat strangely the learned Civil Judge rejected I. A. No. II in tese terms: "no Provisions to produce the Fee certificate after the suit. Rejected sd/- Kumara Gowda, i Addl. Civil Judge,bangalore City, 25-7-1980. " ( 3 ) SRI S. P. Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that in the absence of a specific provision, the plaintiff had invoked the inerent powers of the Court saved by Section 151 of the Code and tere was no justification to reject I- A. No II to which the defendant also ad no objection. ( 4 ) ALONG wit I. A. No, II one Sri r. Girijes, a member of the Bangalore bar and a collegue of Sri Sankar filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances in wic the fee Certificate could not be filed witin 3 days. ( 4 ) ALONG wit I. A. No, II one Sri r. Girijes, a member of the Bangalore bar and a collegue of Sri Sankar filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances in wic the fee Certificate could not be filed witin 3 days. Even the defendant wo ad rigtly consented to a decree, ad no objection to allow i. A. No. II. Almost as a matter of course, suc applications are filed by counsel and are allowed by Courts every day. Every situation that arises in the day to-day administration of justice, cannot be visualised and provision made for the same by the legislature. Section 151 of the Code wic saves the inerent powers of a Court is intended to meet such situation and in exercise of the inerent powers, it is open to a court to condone the delay in filing a fee Certificate. In my opinion, the learned Civil Judge was wolly unjustified in rejecting LA. No. II and driving the parties to file tis revision petition. I am distressed to note that a senior Civil Judge sould have rejected a simple application to which the defendant also ad no objection. ( 5 ) IN the light of my above discussion i allow this revision petition, set aside the order dated 25-7-1980 of the learned civil Judge on I. A. No. II and allow i. A. No. II as prayed for by the 1st petitioner plaintiff. ( 6 ) CIVIL revision petition allowed. ( 7 ) AS the plaintiff and the defendant ave joined in filing tis revision petition, the question of awarding costs does not arise, and terefore, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .