Judgment :- The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/second respondent/second defendant as against the docket order dated 09.04.2002 in I.A.No.458 of 2002 in O.S.No.116 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Puducherry. 2. The first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.458 of 2002 inter alia stating that the suit in O.S.No.116 of 2002 was returned by the trial Court on 25.09.2001 for complying with certain defects and granted time till 110. 2001 for representation and that since he was suffering from viral fever and bedridden, he could not pay the deficit Court fee and the necessary stamp papers were also not available and hence the delay of 174 days in representing the plaint and that the said delay was neither wilful nor wanton but beyond his control and has prayed for an order to condone the said delay of 174 days in representing the plaint. The Trial Court on 4. 2002 has passed a docket order in I.A.No.458 of 2002 in O.S.No.116 of 2002 as "delay condoned". 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the docket order passed by the trial Court in condoning the delay is not correct and according to him when the plaint is represented by paying deficit court fee after the lapse of limitation period, the trial court is duty bound to hear the other side inspite of the fact that the first respondent/plaintiff has paid a part of the Court fee at the first instance. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revision petitioner cites the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in K. Natarajan v. P.K. Rajasekaran reported in (2003)2 M.L.J. 305 wherein at para 20 (7A) it is observed as follows: "(7A) In case where the plaint is presented well within the period of limitation with deficit Court-fee and the court returns the plaint to rectify the defect giving sometime (2 or 3 weeks), which also falls within the period of limitation, but the plaint is re-presented paying deficit Court-fee after (not almost entirely) at the first instance, before condoning the delay in paying the deficit Court-fee." 4. In view of the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision and also bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, this Court is inclined to allow the Civl Revision Petition and accordingly the docket order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.458 of 2002 in O.S.No.116 of 2002 to the effect "delay condoned" is set aside to prevent aberration of justice and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed. 5. Further, the trial Court is directed to issue notice to the other side viz., the revision petitioner/2nd respondent/2nd defendant and another, who are contesting the suit. After providing due opportunities to both the parties, learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the I.A.No.458 of 2002 in O.S.No.116 of 2002 after looking into the contents of the counter if any filed, in the manner known to law, at an early date.