Judgment : This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 25.09.2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram in I.A.No.346 of 2007 in O.S.No.20 of 2006. When the matter has been called, the learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. However, the learned counsel for the respondent is present. 2. A "resume" of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The respondent presented a plaint without affixing suffcient court fee. Whereupon the lower court returned it granting two weeks time. However, she represented the plaint after affixing proper Court fee; whereupon, the plaint was numbered as suit on 30.01.2006. Subsequently, the defendant filed I.A.No.346 of 2007 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was bad for non-payment of appropriate court fee. The lower Court dismissed the said petition. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the period of limitation for filing the suit was up to 03.02.2006 as the agreement to sell was dated 02.02.2003; three years period was contemplated for performance itself; the suit itself was taken on file on 30.01.2006 well within the period of limitation and as such, absolutely, there is no merit in this revision. 4. Perused the records. A bare perusal of the plaint would reveal that the agreement to sell dated 02.02.2003, itself contemplated the performance period as three years. But the suit itself was filed and taken on file on 30.01.2006 and as such, the Court fee cannot be held to have been paid after the period of limitation. If at all, any deficit court fee is paid or time extended for payment after the period of limitation, then a serious scrutiny is contemplated at the level of the lower Court and that too, after giving notice to the defendant concerned. But, in this case, ex-facie and prima facie, it is clear that the facts are entirely different from the ones involved in the decision cited on the defendants side and the lower Court in its impugned order clearly referred to all those facts and highlighted as to how the decisions cited on the side of the petitioner/defendant are not applicable to this case. As such, I could see no merit in this revision and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.