JUDGMENT : P.K. PATRA, J. - These two Misc. Cases have been filed by the U. Co. Bank (previously known as United Commercial Bank), the sole appellant in First Appeal No. 281 of 2000. 2. The appellant-petitioner's suit for Rs. 9,60,511.55 against respondent-defendant No. 1 - Mrs. Khetramani Mohanty and respondent-defendant No. 2- Urban Co-operative Bank, College Square Branch, Cuttack has been preliminarily decreed in part for Rs. 6,58,711.55 on contest against defendant No. 1 and ex-parte against defendant No. 2 and the claim of defendant No. 1 for set off has been decreed in part to the extent of Rs. 3,03,800.00 by the Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack vide his judgment dated 12.5.2000. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant filed the First Appeal affixing court-fee of Re. 1.00 only on 3.11.2000. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the court-fee payable was Rs. 10,336.66. The appellant filed an application u/s 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') being Misc. Case No. 751 of 2000 praying for grant of eight weeks' time to pay the deficit court-fees on the ground that after obtaining permission from the controlling officer the appeal was filed on 3.11.2000 to save delay and the appellant was not ready to pay the required court-fees immediately. A second application was also filed on 7.9.2001 u/s 149 CPC being Misc. Case No. 713 of 2001 after payment of the deficit court-fees on 10.4.2001 praying for extending the time for payment of the required court-fees till that date. 3. Shri S.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner was heard at length. 4. After filing of the First Appeal on 3.11.2000 along with an application u/s 149 CPC (Misc. Case No. 751 of 2000) for extension of time to pay the required court-fees, there was no move to list the matter for consideration of the said application and hence the matter was not listed until 3.9.2001. After the appellant filed an application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC (Misc. Case No. 682 of 2001) and another application under Order Rule 39 Rule 1 CPC (Misc. After the appellant filed an application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC (Misc. Case No. 682 of 2001) and another application under Order Rule 39 Rule 1 CPC (Misc. Case No. 683 of 2001) on 29.8.2001 praying for appointment of a third party receiver with regard to the mortgaged property and for injunction against defendant- respondent No. 1 restraining her from alienating or transferring the mortgaged property, the matter was listed on 3.9.2001 before this Court and the Stamp Reporter was directed to calculate the period of limitation and report if there was any delay in filing the appeal. After calculation, the report of the Stamp Reporter was to the effect that the appeal had been filed in time. 5. Shri Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that there was no intentional delay on the part of the appellant to pay the required court-fees and that there is every chance of the appellant succeeding in the appeal. 6. Though the first application for extension of time to pay the required court-fees within eight weeks was filed on 3.11.2000, the same was never pressed and the deficit court-fee was not paid during that period. Only after filing of the two applications under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC and under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC on 2.8.2001, the matter was listed for consideration on 3.9.2001. In the second application u/s 149 CPC it was stated that one Sangram Keshari Mohanty, son of defendant-respondent No. 1 was negotiating with the Regional Manager of the appellant Bank for settlement of the claim, for which the court-fees payable on the appeal memo had not been paid, but after failure of the negotiation, the Regional Manager informed the advocate for the appellant to pay the required court-fees and accordingly a cheque for Rs. 16,486.00 was issued in favour of Shri Sinha on 20.3.2001 towards court fees and other expenses. The said cheque was deposited in the account of Shri Sinha on 24.3.2001 and the amount was collected on 27.3.2001. The required amount for court fees was deposited in Cuttack Treasury on 30.3.2001 and the court-fees were filed in Court on 10.4.2001. 16,486.00 was issued in favour of Shri Sinha on 20.3.2001 towards court fees and other expenses. The said cheque was deposited in the account of Shri Sinha on 24.3.2001 and the amount was collected on 27.3.2001. The required amount for court fees was deposited in Cuttack Treasury on 30.3.2001 and the court-fees were filed in Court on 10.4.2001. Further it is stated that due to negotiation made by the son of defendant-respondent No. 1, the appellant, with a view to save public money, did not pay the required court-fees in the appeal and only after failure of the negotiation the cheque was issued in favour of Shri Sinha on 24.3.2001 and the court-fees were filed on 10.4.2001 with an application for extension of time till that date. 7. In support of the case of the appellant-petitioner, a letter dated 2.3.2001 addressed by the Regional Manager, U. Co. Bank to the College Square Branch of the said Bank has been filed which was in response to the letter dated 6.11.2000 of Shri Sinha intimating the Regional Manager about filing of the First Appeal against the judgment and decree of the court below and requesting him to pay an advance of Rs. 11,486.00 towards court-fees and other expenses. The Regional Manager has permitted the Branch Manager to pay that amount to Shri Sinha in the form of an A/c. payee cheque. The second application u/s 149 CPC (Misc. Case No. 713 of 2001) is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Branch Manager of the appellant-Bank. 8. The said letter dated 2.3.2001 of the Regional Manager does not reveal that there was any negotiation for settlement of the claim between the son of defendant-respondent No. 1 and the Regional Manager, but in para-3 of the application registered as Misc. Case No. 713 of 2001 it has been stated that the deponent (Branch Manager) received the letter dated 2.3.2001 informing him to pay the court-fees and other expenses as per the bill submitted by the advocate dated- 6.11.2000 and in para-4 thereof it has been stated that thereafter the deponent contacted the Regional Manager who informed him that defendant-respondent No. 1 had offered to pay Rs. 6,58,711.55 in settlement of the claim and permitted the deponent to negotiate with Sangram Keshari Mohanty to raise the amount for settlement of the claim as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India under 'One-time Settlement Scheme' which was to expire on 31.3.2001. In para-5 of the said application it has been stated that the deponent contacted said Sangram Keshari Mohanty on several occasions for enhancing the amount, but in vain, and therefore the cheque for Rs. 16,486.00 was issued in favour of Shri Sinha on 24.3.2001, keeping in view that the Scheme was to expire on 31.3.2001. 9. The appeal had been filed on 3.11.2000 and the prayer of the appellant was for grant of eight weeks' time for payment of the required court fees. In case the said prayer had been allowed by the Court, the appellant was to pay the required court-fees on or before 29th December, 2000, but the matter was never moved before the Court till 3.9.2001, although the court-fees had been filed on 10.4.2001. Even if the matter was not considered by the Court, it was the bounden duty of the appellant, being a banker, to pay the required court-fees within that period. It cannot be said that the appellant was financially not sound to pay the required court-fees amounting to Rs. 10,336.00. A court-fee of Re. 1.00 had been affixed to the memo, of appeal. When the Regional Manager of the Bank is silent regarding settlement of the claim by any negotiation under the scheme of the Reserve Bank of India, the plea of the appellant-petitioner on this score appears to be an after-thought and cannot be believed to be true. Even if the plea of negotiation for settlement of the claim is believed to be true, for the sake of argument, that cannot be a reasonable and valid ground for nonpayment of the required court-fees in time. 10. Shri Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the decisions reported in Mahanth Ram Das Vs. Ganga Das, ; Mannan Lal Vs. Chhotaka Bibi, (Dead) by Lrs. B. Sharda Shankar and Others, (Collector, Land Acquisition v. Dina Nath) Union Bank of India and Another Vs. Jagan Natb Radhey Shyam and Co. and Another, and Buta Singh (Dead) by L. Rs. Vs. Union of India, . 11. Ganga Das, ; Mannan Lal Vs. Chhotaka Bibi, (Dead) by Lrs. B. Sharda Shankar and Others, (Collector, Land Acquisition v. Dina Nath) Union Bank of India and Another Vs. Jagan Natb Radhey Shyam and Co. and Another, and Buta Singh (Dead) by L. Rs. Vs. Union of India, . 11. In the case of Mahanth Ram Das (supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that when a Bench of the High Court while deciding an appeal in favour of the appellant passed a peremptory order fixing the period for payment of deficit court-fee and the appellant made an application for extension of time before the time fixed had run out, but the application came for hearing before a Division Bench after the period had run out, the High Court was not powerless to enlarge the time, even though it had peremptorily fixed a period for payment. It has been further observed that Sections 14, 149 and 151 CPC clothed the High Court with ample power to do justice to litigant if sufficient cause was made for extension. In the case of Mannan Lal (supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that the bar u/s 3 of the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeal) Act (14 of 1962) will not operate in a case in which an insufficiently stamped memorandum of appeal had been filed before commencement of the said Act, but it is accepted on payment of deficit court-fee as directed by the High Court even after commencement of the said Act and the same can be treated as an appeal pending on the date immediately preceding the date of enforcement of the said Act. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition (supra), the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the court is empowered to allow time to the appellant to make good the deficit and extend such time in its discretion and on compliance the court-fee shall be deemed to have been paid at the time of presentation of the appeal and that the discretion has, however, to be exercised judiciously. In the case of Union Bank of India (supra) the Delhi High Court observed that in dealing with the application for condonation of delay for making good the deficiency of court-fee, it is the settled practice of the court that the discretion conferred on the Court is normally expected to be exercised in favour of the litigant except in cases of contumacious delay or positive mala fides or for reasons of similar type. In the case of Buta Singh (supra) the Apex Court held that the aid of Section 19 would betaken only when the party was not able to pay the court-fee in circumstances beyond his control or under unavoidable circumstances and the court would be justified in an appropriate case to exercise the discretionary power u/s 149 CPC after giving due notice to the affected party. It was further observed that if in an appeal u/s 44 of the Land Acquisition Act the amount is initially kept low and then depending upon the mood of the appellate court payment of deficit court-fee is sought to be made, it would create unhealthy practice and would become a game of chess and a matter of chance and that practice would not be conducive and proper for orderly conduct of litigation. 12. Keeping in view the decisions referred to above, it is to be considered whether the appellant petitioner did not pay the required court-fees for any circumstances beyond his control or under unavoidable circumstances and whether it has been able to show sufficient cause for extension of time to make good the deficit court -fees. 13. As indicated in the earlier paragraphs, the appellant prayed for eight weeks time to pay the deficit court-fees, and did not pay the same within that period, i.e., within 29th December, 2000, but paid the same on 10.4.2001 without pressing for consideration of its application for condonation of delay and without filing another application for further extension of time to pay the deficit court-fees. Before admission of the appeal, two applications, one for appointment of a third party receiver and the other for injunction, were filed and when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner became aware that he had to pray for extension of time till 1 0.4.2001 to pay the deficit court-fee since the first application u/s 149 CPC had become infructuous. He filed the second application u/s 149 CPC vide Misc. Case No. 713 of 2001 on 7.9.2001 which is under consideration. 14. Evidently in the second application u/s 149 CPC, vide Misc. case No. 713 of 2001, the plea of the appellant was that it did not pay the court fees to avoid wastage of public money since there was negotiation between the parties for settlement of the claim which cannot be accepted to be genuine as the letter of the Regional Manager of the Bank dated 2.3.2001 is silent about the same that apart, the defendant could not have negotiated for settlement of the claim with the Regional Manager of the Bank without the knowledge of the Branch Manager who had advanced the loan. If such a plea taken by the Bank is accepted, then in almost all appeals preferred by Banks, the same plea would be taken and the court-fees payable in the appeals will not be paid in time. Therefore, such a plea is untenable and is liable to be rejected. 15. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the appellant could not pay the deficit court-lees in the circumstances beyond his control, or under unavoidable circumstances and that there was sufficient cause for extension of time to make good the deficit court-fees. 16. In view of the discussions made above, Misc. case No. 751 of 2000 is liable to be dismissed as infructuous and Misc. Case No. 713 of 2001 is liable to be missed being devoid of any merit. Therefore, it will not be expedient to go into merits of the appeal. 17. In the result, Misc. Case No. 751 of 2000 is dismissed as infructuous and Misc. Case No. 713 of 2001 is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Consequently the First Appeal No. 281 of 2000 has to be rejected. P.C. Naik, J. 18. I agree 19. Misc. Cases and F. A. dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed