ORDER : The defendant in O.S.No.725 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 13-6-2002 whereunder the suit was ordered to be registered and summons were issued to the defendant. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The respondent-State Bank of India, Waddepally Branch filed O.S.No.725 of 2002 seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.52,155/- alleged to be due from the defendant/petitioner herein. On receipt of the summons, the defendant filed written statement opposing the suit claim. Thereafter, the issues were settled and the trial was taken up. While the matter was coming up for cross-examination of P.W.1, the defendant filed this revision petition contending inter alia that the entire proceedings before the trial Court are vitiated since the plaint was presented with insufficient Court fee and the Court below while granting extension of time for payment of deficit Court fee failed to issue any notice to the defendant. 3. As can be seen from the material on record, the suit was presented on 4-5-2002, which was the last date for closing of the Courts for summer vacation. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff did not pay the required Court fee along with the plaint, and an interlocutory application was filed requesting to grant 20 days time to deposit the balance of Court fee. In support of the said application, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff has sworn to the affidavit stating that the Court Fee Stamps are not available in the Court premises or in the city and as such the plaintiff is unable to pay the Court fee and since 4-5-2002 is the last working day for Civil Courts followed by the vacation and the Courts will be reopened on 4-6-2002 and in the meantime the limitation is going to be expired, the plaintiff may be granted further time for depositing the remaining Court fee. Thereafter, vide docket order dated 1-6-2002, the plaintiff was permitted by the Court below to submit the Deficit Court Fee on or before 10-6-2002. It appears that the plaintiff resubmitted the papers on 10-6-2002, but the objection with regard to the payment of deficit Court fee was not complied with. Thereafter, vide docket order dated 1-6-2002, the plaintiff was permitted by the Court below to submit the Deficit Court Fee on or before 10-6-2002. It appears that the plaintiff resubmitted the papers on 10-6-2002, but the objection with regard to the payment of deficit Court fee was not complied with. In the circumstances, the Court below by order dated 11-6-2002, again returned the plaint granting seven days time for complying with the objections. Then the deficit Court fee was paid and the plaint was resubmitted on 12-6-2002. Thereafter, by order dated 13-6-2002 the Court below ordered the plaint to be registered and accordingly the suit was numbered. After receipt of summons, the written statement was filed by the defendant, the issues were settled and the suit is coming up for trial. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in K. Natarajan v. P.K. Rajasekaran (2003) 9 ILD 274 contends that though the suit was presented within the limitation, since admittedly the deficit Court fee was paid only on 12-6-2002, which falls beyond the period of limitation, the Court below has committed an error in extending the time for payment of deficit Court fee in exercise of powers under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without notice to the defendant. The learned Counsel contends that having regard to the admitted fact that as on the date of payment of the Court fee, the suit was barred by limitation, the suit cannot be proceeded further and is liable to be dismissed in limini. 6. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the deficit Court fee was paid within the limitation prescribed and therefore notice to the defendant is not necessary and at any rate since the defendant failed to raise such an objection at the relevant point of time and participated in the suit proceedings, the suit cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the time for payment of Court fee was extended without notice to the defendant and therefore no interference is warranted at this stage. The learned Counsel for the respondent while placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others 1997 AIR SC 3 further submits that the defect, if any, being mere procedural, which does not go to the root of the matter, should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. 7. Section 149 of C.P.C. which empowers the Court to make up deficiency of Court fee runs as under: 149. Power to make up deficiency of court fees Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to court fees has not been paid, the court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such court fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance. 8. In K. Natarajan's case (supra) the Division Bench of Madras High Court while considering an identical issue with regard to the scope and nature of the power conferred under Section 149 of C.P.C. held that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that a plaint cannot be presented without necessary Court fee. But, however, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 lays down that no document which is chargeable with fee under this Act shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in or be acted on or furnished by any Court unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated as chargeable under the Act. Hence, it necessarily follows that the plaint has to be valued under The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the same has to be presented after affixing the requisite Court fee. But again we have Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, there are no reasons to come to the conclusion that the term document occurring in Section 149 would not include a plaint. 9. But again we have Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, there are no reasons to come to the conclusion that the term document occurring in Section 149 would not include a plaint. 9. The Division Bench also held that Section 149 which gives the discretion to the Court has to be exercised in a manner known to law. 10. As held by the Supreme Court in Mahasay Ganesh Prasad Ray v. Narendra Nath Sen 1953 AIR SC 431 though the question of payment of Court fee is primarily a matter between the Government and the person concerned and the other party cannot attack the order on the ground that it takes away his valuable right to plead the bar of limitation, while following the law laid down in Buta Singh v. Union of India 1995 AIR SC 1945, the Division Bench further held that the discretion to be exercised under Section 149 of C.P.C. is one of judicial discretion and certainly it is open to the defendant to raise his finger if that is not exercised in a manner known to law, he being a party to the proceeding. It is not as if here the plaintiff sought permission to file the suit as a pauper and that he is being opposed by the defendant. 11. Thus, the Division Bench summed up the legal position as under: 'Before exercising discretion under Section 149 C.P.C., and granting time to the plaintiff to pay necessary Court fee and which time goes beyond the period of limitation to file a suit, notice must be given to the defendant. Of course, where the time granted by the Court to pay the deficit Court fee falls within the period of limitation to file the suit, no notice need be given to the defendant/opposite party'-. 12. It is relevant to note that Section 4 of The A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 is analogous to Section 4 of The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and therefore the above ratio laid down in K. Natarajan's case (supra), with regard to the nature and scope of Sec. 149 of C.P.C., squarely applies to the case on hand. 13. 13. However, the question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant can be held to be entitled to a notice and whether it is necessary for this Court to adjudicate on the said issue in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. This question has also been answered by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in K. Natarajan's case (supra) holding that if the Court has exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff without issuing notice to the defendant, then it is open to the defendant to file an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. for proper relief and that alternatively it is also open to the defendant to file a Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was also observed that it is open to the defendant to raise such objection for the first time at the trial of the suit or even at the appellate stage. 15. Thus, though it is open to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly keeping in view that the correctness of the reasons assigned by the plaintiff Bank for its failure to pay the proper Court fee along with the plaint has been disputed by the defendant and that there also appears to be a dispute as to whether the deficit Court fee was paid within the period of limitation or not and thus the objections raised require consideration on appreciation of evidence that may be adduced by the parties and moreover the suit itself is now coming up for trial, I am of the view that it would be appropriate for the defendant / revision petitioner to move an application before the Court below under Section 151 of C.P.C. raising the objections that are raised in this Revision Petition and to seek a proper relief. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the revision petitioner/defendant to raise his objections by filing an appropriate application under Section 151 of C.P.C. before the Court below. If such an application is filed, the Court below shall consider the same after affording due opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 17. If such an application is filed, the Court below shall consider the same after affording due opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 17. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.