JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—Having heard learned Counsel for the parties I am of opinion that the order under challenge deserves to be set-aside, albeit, in exercise of the discretionary powers of this Court under section 115, CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Petitioner Swami Ram has filed a suit which is pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class (II) Hamirpur By an order passed on November 12, 1990, the petitioner, as plaintiff, was required to make good the deficiency in the amount of court fee on or before November 30, 1990. The case of the petitioner is that he made necessary arrangements for the amount and was in a position to make good the deficiency on November 30, 1990 but at about 11 30 A M the trial Court passed an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for failure of the applicant to do so. The order of the learned Judge dated November 30, 1990 says ? "......As per order dated 12-11-1990. the plaintiff was allowed time to make good deficiency in Court fees on or before 30-11-1990. Today neither the plaintiff is present nor his Counsel has appeared before the Court. During the stipulated period required deficiency in court fees has also not been made good. In these circumstances, the plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (2) CPC.....” 3. The same day the plaintiff filed an application under section 151 CPC for recalling the aforesaid order and for permission to make good the deficiency in the amount of court fee. This application was rejected by the learned Sub-Judge on May 25, 1991. The learned Judge noticed the plea made on behalf of the plaintiff before him that the Court should have waited at least upto 2 00 P. M before passing the order rejecting the plaint, as was required under the High Court Rules and Orders. 4. This application was rejected by the learned Sub-Judge on May 25, 1991. The learned Judge noticed the plea made on behalf of the plaintiff before him that the Court should have waited at least upto 2 00 P. M before passing the order rejecting the plaint, as was required under the High Court Rules and Orders. 4. A perusal of the order dated May 25, 1991, which also is under challenge in the present revision, shows that the learned Judge had not adverted to the aforesaid plea to the effect that the Court should have waited at least till 2.00 P. M before passing an order rejecting the plaint for failure to make good the deficiency in court-fee What weighed with the learned Judge was the fact that the remedy open to the applicant was by filing an appeal/revision against the order dated November 30, 1991. 5. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated August 14, 1991 notice, pending admission, of the revision was issued to the defendants-respondents. One of them, namely, respondent No. 2 (Daya Kishan) alone has appeared through Shri Kajiv Sharma The other defendant, though served, has not appeared before this Court either in person or through a Counsel. 6. It is true that an order rejecting the plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII is appealable in nature. It would have been proper for the applicant to have assailed it in an appeal as has been canvassed by Shri Rajiv Sharma on the basis of the decisions in Paruchuru Thirumala Satyanarayanacharyulu and another v. Vannava Ramalingam and others, AIR 1952 Madras 86; Bibhas Mohan Mukherjee and others v Hari Charan Banerjee and others, AIR 1961 Cal 491; and Mohammed Kani Rowther v. Hassan Rowther Bulghese Been and another, AIR 1972 Kerala 56- However, since the order dated November 30, 1990, on the face of it, is beyond jurisdiction I am inclined to set it aside in the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under section US CP(3 read with Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. The applicant, as noticed earlier, was required to make good deficiency in the amount of court-fee on or before November 30, 1990. That entitled him to do so till at least after lunch hours on November 30, 1990 in terms of the Rules and Orders applicable to the trial courts. 7. The applicant, as noticed earlier, was required to make good deficiency in the amount of court-fee on or before November 30, 1990. That entitled him to do so till at least after lunch hours on November 30, 1990 in terms of the Rules and Orders applicable to the trial courts. In any case, he could have done so on the basis of the equitable principle enshrined in section 9 of the General Clauses Act which reads thus : "9. Commencement and termination of time.—(1) In any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the words "from’, and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "to". (2) This section applies also to all Central Acts made after the third day of January, 1868, and to all Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887." 8. This is the view shared by various High Courts and a reference may be made to Sudalayadum Perumal Nadam and others v. Alt. Sivananji Nadachi, AIR 1916 Madras 840 ; T. A. Janakumara Nainar v. Periaswamy Goundan and others. AIR 1949 Madras 376 ; Marakanda Sahu v. Lal Sadananda Singh, AIR 1952 Orissa 279 ; Dharamraj Mahadeo v. Additional Deputy Commissioner; Akola and others, AIR 1957 Bombay 154 and Padma Char an Mohapatra v. Superintendent of Police-cum-Taxing authority of Phulbani, AIR 1965 Orissa 71. 9. Procedural law is meant to advance justice. It should be so interpreted. 10. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case I set aside the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge on November 30, 1990 as also the subsequent order dated May 25, 1991. The suit shall stand restored to its original number and proceedings in accordance with law shall be taken therein by the learned Sub-Judge after notice to the parties Let the record of the courts below be sent back forthwith so as to be available before the court concerned on December 16, 1991 when the parties shall appear before the learned Judge with a copy of this judgment.. Costs on parties. Order accordingly.