JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J.:- This revision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside order dated 12.12.2009 (Annexure P4) passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal (hereinafter described as ‘the first appellate Court’) vide which the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed being not maintainable. 2. A conditional decree was passed in favour of the respondent which was contingent upon his fixing ad valorem court fee which which was to be affixed within a period of fifteen days, failing which the suit was to be deemed to have been automatically dismissed. The judgment was passed on 30.11.2007 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal (referred to hereinafter as ‘the trial Court’). 3. The respondent filed an application on 17.12.2007 to affix the court fee which was taken on record. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007 and also challenged the order of the trial Court accepting the ad valorem court fee after the expiry of the period of fifteen days. The lower appellate Court, vide judgment dated 9.9.2009, while affirming the findings of the trial Court on all the issues, remanded the matter back to the trial Court for determination of a short question as to whether the time given in the conditional decree for affixing the ad valorem court fee could be extended under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The trial Court decided the issue in favour of the respondent and held that no time was sought by him to affix the ad valorem court fee. This was done vide order dated 12.10.2009. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the first appellate Court by the impugned order as being not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 and Section 104 of the C.P.C. 7. Hence, this revision petition., 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the impugned order. 9. In my considered opinion, the petition is totally without any merit. The respondent had satisfactorily explained that the affixation of the ad valorem court fee was within the stipulated period of fifteen days. Hence, this revision petition., 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the impugned order. 9. In my considered opinion, the petition is totally without any merit. The respondent had satisfactorily explained that the affixation of the ad valorem court fee was within the stipulated period of fifteen days. Even though, 15th December,2007 was the actual date for affixation of the court fee, but on that date the Presiding Officer of the trial Court was on leave and the next day happened to be a Sunday and consequently, the court fee could not be affixed which was done on 17.12.2007. By virtue of the decree against the petitioners, who are judgment debtors, they were required to pay a sum of Rs.6,83,247/- to the respondent along with 12% interest per annum as well as compensation of Rs.10,000/-. This decree was subject to the affixation of the court fee as observed earlier. Petitioner No.1 is an instrumentality of the State and the other petitioners are its officers. They were not expected to raise such a plea, especially when the respondent had satisfactorily explained the cause for affixing the court fee on 17.12.2007 instead of 15.12.2007. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had successfully challenged the decree against them, but by way of filing the appeal or revision, they were seeking to defeat a substantial right in favour of the respondent, who was having a valid decree in his favour. Not satisfied with the rejection of their objection by the trial Court with regard to the affixing of court fee by the respondent beyond the stipulated period, they had even filed an appeal and now the present revision. It is also to be noticed that the decree pertains to the grant of pensionary benefits to the respondent. The conduct of the petitioners, therefore, can be termed to be reprehensible as they first tried to defeat the right of a pensioner forcing him to knock the door of the Court and when the trial Court answered the suit in his favour by passing a decree, then the same was sought to be thwarted by resorting to frivolous and hyper-technical objection. This not only reflects on the bankruptcy of the moral approach of the petitioners, but also reflects to unwarranted tendency to indulge in luxury of litigation to defeat the right of a citizen thereby encroaching heavily on the valuable time of the Courts. Therefore, the instant petition being totally without any merit is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be recovered from the pay of the person, who is responsible for opining about the merits of pursuing such a litigation. ------------------