ORDER Respondent filed the suit against the revision petitioner with deficit Court fee and an application seeking time for payment of court fee. The trial Court granted 20 days time for payment of Court fee. Respondent filed another application seeking further extension of time in which the trial Court extended time for payment by 10 more days. On an application seeking further extension of time, trial Court granted 15 more days time. Thereafter, respondent presented the plaint with a delay of 146 days along with an application to condone delay, after complying all the objections, which was allowed by the trial Court and the suit was registered. After the revision petitioner put in appearance in the suit he filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, on the ground application for extension of time for payment of deficit court fees was not filed within time for the 2nd time and application for condonation of delay of 146 days filed by the plaintiff does not contain reasons for nonpayment of court fee within the time granted by the trial Court. The said petition was dismissed by the order under revision. Hence this revision by the defendant. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the plaintiff (respondent) was granted extension of time for payment of court fee on three occasions, and since none of those orders are complied with and since respondent filed an application for condonation of delay in representing the plaint without giving any explanation for his non-payment of court fee within time, it is clear that Court fees was not paid within the time granted by the trial court and so, in view of Rule 11 of Order? CPC, the plaint has to be rejected and relied on Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra1 in support of the said contention. 3. In my considered opinion, Saleem Bhais case relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is of no help in deciding this revision, because in that case, the Apex Court remitted the case to the trial Court for deciding the application on the basis of the averments in the plaint after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties in accordance with law. Rule 11 of Order? CPC reads: "11. Rule 11 of Order? CPC reads: "11. Rejection of plaint:- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so: (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamppaper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so: (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: (e) where it is not filed in duplicate. (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9: provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, "as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." 4. It is clear from the above provision that Court has power to extend time for payment of court fee. Though respondent filed three applications for extension of time for payment of court fee, he did not comply with those orders within the time granted by the trial Court. He filed IANo. 1030 of 2003, seeking condonation of delay of 146 days in representing the plaint, accompanied by the affidavit of his counsel, explaining the reasons for delay i.e. the bundle being mixed up with the records of cases in his office which were disposed of. Since that petition was allowed by the trial Court, it has to be taken that the trial court was satisfied that there are valid grounds for condonation of the delay. 5. Because of the bundle being misplaced in the office of his advocate, there was no possibility for the respondent to pay the court fee within the time granted by the trial Court. 5. Because of the bundle being misplaced in the office of his advocate, there was no possibility for the respondent to pay the court fee within the time granted by the trial Court. When the trial Court allowed the petition seeking condonation of delay in representing the plaint, it should be deemed that it has condoned the delay of payment of court fee within the time granted by it. The Apex Court in Mahanth Ram Das v. Gangadas2 held that Court can permit payment of Court fee even after period of limitation of filing the proceedings has expired. In fact, Section 149 CPC enables the court to extend time for payment of Court fee on plaint, memorandum of appeal or on any application, if there is delay in payment of such fee, even after expiry of the period of limitation. In Mannanlal v. Chhotaka Bibi (dead) by Lrs. B. Sarda Shankar and others3 the Apex Court clearly held that Court has such power under Section 149 CPC. Though reasons for nonpayment of Court fee within the time are not explained in the affidavit filed in support of IANo.1030 of 2003, since ground for the delay in representation is misplacement of the bundle, it should be deemed that the trial Court was satisfied that it was reason for nonpayment of court fee within time and so I find no grounds to interfere with the order dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.