A suit was filed by the petitioners in which the prayer was to declare the decree obtained in Title Suit No. 44/76 as fraudulent and void. A point relating to payment of due court fee was raised and by an order passed on 14.3.83 it was held that proper court fees had not been paid. The plaintiffs were granted time till 12.8.83 for payment of deficit court fees. This date was extended upto 3,9.83 and thereafter upto 27.9.83 and finally -to 10.11.83. The suit, however, came to be dismissed on-" 0.11.83" on which date the plaintiffs were found absent and had also not taken any steps. Feeling aggrieved at the dismissal of the suit, a petition under Order 9 Rule 4, read with section. 151 of the Code of,-Civil Procedure was filed which came to be dismissed on 10.4.85. An appeal was preferred against this order but that too was dismissed. Hence this revision. 2. A perusal of the impugned order shows' that the aforesaid petition came to be dismissed because the order of 10.11.83 passed by the learned trial Court was taken to be an order of rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (c) of the Code. Shri K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that this view is untenaole inasmuch as had the plaint been rejected on the ground of non-payment of deficit court fee, the Court would have given its reasons as required by Order 7, Rule 12 of the Code which has not been done. Learned counsel further contends that against the order of the trial Court for dismissal of the suit and not rejection of the plaint, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9, Rule 4, read with section 151 of the Code was maintainable. In this connection, I have been referred to a decision of Patna High Court in Damodar vs. Aditya, AIR 1972 Patna 289, wherein it was, inter alia, held that in case of rejection of plaint for non-payment of court fee, the order is reviewable. In this connection, I have been referred to a decision of Patna High Court in Damodar vs. Aditya, AIR 1972 Patna 289, wherein it was, inter alia, held that in case of rejection of plaint for non-payment of court fee, the order is reviewable. This view was, however, taken because of the Patna Amendment of Order 47, Rule 1 by which the words "or on account of non-payment, in spite of due diligence, of court fee within time allowed by the court'' were added in sub-rule (1) in the paragraph below clause (c) after the words, on the face of the record. Such a provisions is not to be found in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code a it is applicable to this State. 3. Shri K. Sarma also relied on Balaram vs. Krishna Kumari, AIR 1975 Orissa/J.78, wherein it was held that where a plaint is rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 for non-payment of court, fee, and the cause for non-payment is satisfactory, application for restoration o£ suit under section 151 is tenable. With respect, I say that I have my doubts about the correctness of this view-expressed by the learned single Judge inasmuch as section 2 (2) of the Code has specifically held that rejection of the plaint shall be deemed to be a "decree”, and as the express provision relating to appeal against the decree would militate against the view that in such a case also section 151 could be invoked. 4. As against the aforesaid submission advanced by Sri K. Sarma, Shri B.K. Sarma appearing for the opposite parties has referred to Shamrao Janrao vs Amolak Chinmira, AIR 1949-Nagpnr 373,: in which it was held that when a suit is dismissed for non-payment of deficit court fee, the order meant rejection "of plaint, against which only appeal lies and not revision. My attention has also been drawn by Shri B. K. Sarma to a Full Bench decision rendered in Bibhas Mohan vs. Hari Charan, AIR 1961 Calcutta 491, in which it was that dismissal of a suit on the ground of, non-payment of deficit court fee amounts in law to an order of rejection of a plaint. : 5. My attention has also been drawn by Shri B. K. Sarma to a Full Bench decision rendered in Bibhas Mohan vs. Hari Charan, AIR 1961 Calcutta 491, in which it was that dismissal of a suit on the ground of, non-payment of deficit court fee amounts in law to an order of rejection of a plaint. : 5. In the present case as the suit has not been dismissed only on the ground of default of the plaintiffs but also .because of their not having taken steps, I and satisfied that the order could be viewed as rejection of the plaint because of non-payment of deficit court fee though it was not specifically stated to be so. As the petitioners have approached this Court in revision, I do not think if it can be held that the view taken by the two courts below was such which can be interfered by this. Court sitting in revision inasmuch as the view taken by them can also be regarded to be legal and sound. 6. The alternative with the plaintiff-petitioners, therefore, is that to prefer appeal It may be pointed out that it will be open to the petitioners to contend before the appellate Court that the time spent in this Court should be excluded in view of what has been stated in section 14 of the Limitation Act. On such a plea being taken, am sure, a favourable view would be taken inasmuch as it appears to me that the time spent in this regard was spent bona fide. 7. In the result, the petition stands dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations.