ORDER Navkar, J. - 1. This is an appeal under section 100 of the Code Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 19-7-1979 passed by the First Additional District Judge Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No 68-A/78, disallowing to extend time for the purpose of court fees under section 149 C.P.C. and dismissing the appeal thereby upholding the judgment and decree dated 13-1-1978 of the Second Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior in civil suit. No. 88-A of 1973. 2. The plaintiff respondent Patiram filed a suit for eviction of a residential house on 15-11-1973 in occupation of the appellant defendant. In the suit it was stated that father of defendants was a tenant and he had executed a rent-note on 12-4-1968. After the death of the original tenant his legal representatives who are the defendants, became the tenants of the plaintiff, that the arrears of rent claimed were to the extent of Rs. 2,080. It was averred that this amount was not paid inspite of a notice of demand on the defendants Therefore, a decree on the grounds under section 12(1) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) along with section 12(1) (c) of the Act was asked by the plaintiff. 3. The defendants denied that they are the tenants of the plaintiff and they pleaded that the house in question is a joint Hindu Family property wherein the brothers of Khunnilal and Hiralal are also owners and are in possession of the suit house. The trial Court decreed the suit for arrears of rent as well as it upheld the grounds under section 12 (1) (a) and 12(1) (c) of the Act. It seems that the defendant filed an appeal only against the decree of eviction which was passed against them on the grounds mentioned above. But, they did not pay the court fees on the decree which was passed against them for arrears of rent. During the state of arguments in the appellate Court the plaintiff took an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal for want of court-fees. It was also submitted that as the court-fees is not paid for a decree filed against arrears of rent, that decree has become final' and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed as not maintainable. During the state of arguments in the appellate Court the plaintiff took an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal for want of court-fees. It was also submitted that as the court-fees is not paid for a decree filed against arrears of rent, that decree has become final' and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed as not maintainable. When this objection was raised, the appellants submitted an application on 17-5-1979 under Order 7 rule 11 and section 149, C. P. C. along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act He also submitted an application under Order 47 rule 1. C.P.C. for a review of the order dated 16-5-1979. The deficit court-fees was also deposited by the appellant on 17-5-1979. The appellate Court by its judgment dismissed the application under section 149, C. P. C. and dismissed the appeal also. Against that Judgment, this appeal, has been filed. 4. The only submission made before me is that the view taken by the appellate Court is very strict and it is not according to law. 5. Before going further, I will have to state that when the appeal was filed and when it came for hearing before the Court there is no objection by the office that the Court fees paid on the appeal is insufficient; when the Court granted a stay order, staying the execution of decree passed by the trail Court, there is also no objection by the office that the court-fees paid on the appeal is insufficient. When the Court granted a stay order, staying the execution of decree passed by the trial Court there is also no mention that the Court-fees paid on the appellant is not proper. In application dated 17-5-1979 which is supported by an affidavit the appellants have stated that on the advice of the counsel the appeal was filed and because of his advice the Court-fees was paid on the valuation of the decree for eviction. But, as the counsel gave an opinion that as the tenancy is denied, there is no need of paying Court fees on the decree for arrears of the rent the Court-fee, was not paid for the same. But, as the counsel gave an opinion that as the tenancy is denied, there is no need of paying Court fees on the decree for arrears of the rent the Court-fee, was not paid for the same. This application is replied by the respondent in which he has contested the allegations made by the appellants and it is mentioned in the application that the mistake is malafide and no t the bona fide one and, therefore the application under section 149, C.P.C should be dismissed. 6. The decree passed against the defendants under section 12(1)(a)and 12(1) (c) of the Act was appealed and proper court-fees was also paid on it but that appeal has not been decided on merits Only because court-fees is not paid on a decree of arrears of rent an appeal against eviction will not become infructuous. It will have to be decided on merits and the Court will have to give a finding whether the grounds under section 12(1) (a) and 12 (1) (c) of the Act are made out. Therefore, even if the order of the appellate Court is upheld, the case will have to go back for decision on merits regarding the appeal filed by the defendants against the decree for eviction. 7. The appellate Court in para 7 of its judgment has stated. "It is obvious that the payment of Court-fees was deliberate. The contention that under a bonafide mistake of law deficit Court fees was paid is also not acceptable." If the appellate Court wanted to give a finding as to whether the mistake was delib or bona-fide then in my opinion the Court should have given time to the parties to substantiate their claim and then after considering the evidence produced by them, should have decided whether the mistake is bona-fide or mala-fide. I would have remanded the case for that purpose only but by remanding It, it will be a waste of time. By the time this point is decided the appeal can be decided on merits and as I am allowing the application under section 149. C.P.C. of the appellants, I feel it proper that instead of sending the appeal against eviction for decision, I will send the appeal against eviction and also against arrears of rent for decision to the appellate Court. C.P.C. of the appellants, I feel it proper that instead of sending the appeal against eviction for decision, I will send the appeal against eviction and also against arrears of rent for decision to the appellate Court. Section 149; C.P.C. gives power to the Court to get the deficiency of Court-fees made up at any stage of the suit. It also gives discretion to the Court to allow a party to pay such court-fees. It was argued before me that this discretion should be used judiciously. I see nothing wrong in it. Section 149, C.P.C. or other procedural sections which are contained in the C.P.C. are meant to see that the justice is done to the parties. 8. It was argued before me by Shri R.S. Saxena learned counsel for the respondents that the view of this Court that if decree against eviction is to be challenged full court-fees should be paid on it was taken some thirteen years back and the counsel of the standing of Shri B.G. Apte, should not have committed this mistake of not paying the Court-fees. There is no doubt that Shri Apte is a counsel of a long standing having good experience in civil cases and he should not have committed such a mistake. But, while arguing before me he repeatedly submitted before me that this was a mistake on his part and because of his advice the Court-fees was not paid, He was even willing to file an affidavit to that effect. I see no reason not to accept the statement at bar made by Shri Apte and the affidavit filed by the appellant fully support the statement made before me. The Court fees has already been paid. The question now is only of allowing the application under section 149, C.P.C. But because of this mistake, I feel that while allowing the application I will have to impose costs on the appellants. I impose costs of Rs. 150 on the appellants which they should pay to the learned counsel for the - respondents within a period of one month from to day. If this amount is not paid as ordered by me, the application of the appellants will stand dismissed with costs. 9. The result is that the order dated 19-7-1979 is set aside and the application under section 149, C. P. C. is allowed subject to the condition mentioned above. If this amount is not paid as ordered by me, the application of the appellants will stand dismissed with costs. 9. The result is that the order dated 19-7-1979 is set aside and the application under section 149, C. P. C. is allowed subject to the condition mentioned above. The Case will now go back to the appellate Court for further disposal. The appellants will be entitled to get back the Court-fees they have paid on memo of appeal. A certified copy to that affect be issued to them.