JUDGMENT : SURJIT SINGH, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated, 9.9.2005 of learned District Judge, whereby accepting the appeal against the order dated 17.11.2004 of Civil Judge (Executing Court), objections u/s 47 CPC, file by respondent-JD Roshan Lal, have been allowed and the decree has been held to have become inexecutable. 2. Relevant facts are that petitioner-DH filed a suit for possession of a house in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Kinnaur against the present respondent and some other persons. That suit was decreed. Operative part of the judgment read that Court fee affixed by the petitioner was deficient and one month time was given to him (the petitioner) to make up deficiency in the Court fee. Judgment was delivered on 20.4.2002. Deficiency was not made up within the time fixed in the operative part of the judgment. 3. An application, u/s 148 CPC, was moved for extension of time. Though there is no order on record, suggesting that time was extended, the two Courts below have proceeded on the assumption that time had been extended, which fact suggests that there was no contest between the parties with respect to the fact that time had been extended. 4. Deficiency in Court fee was made up within the extended time. Thereafter execution petition was filed. One of the JDs i.e. respondent Roshan Lal, filed objections that time in making up deficiency, in the Court fee, had been extended without notice to the JDS and, hence, extension was without jurisdiction. 5. Trial Court rejected the objection. Appeal was filed by JD Roshan Lal in the Court of District Judge, who has accepted the appeal, holding that trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to extend the time, initially fixed in the operative part of the judgment, in making up the deficiency in Court fee. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. View taken by the learned appellate Court is not correct. Honble Supreme Court, as early as in the year 1961, held in Mahanth Ram Das Vs. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. View taken by the learned appellate Court is not correct. Honble Supreme Court, as early as in the year 1961, held in Mahanth Ram Das Vs. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882 that where time is fixed in the judgment in making up deficiency in the Court fee and the deficiency is not made up within that period, time can be extended, irrespective of the fact whether the application is made before the expiry of the time fixed in the judgment or on the expiry of that time, as both Sections 148 and 149 CPC apply to such a case. There is nothing on record indicating that notice of application was not given. Otherwise also, the issue regarding court fee being between the party liable to pay court fee and the Court, the opposite party has no right to be given notice. 8. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, impugned order of the learned District Judge is set aside and that of the Executing Court restored. Parties are directed to appear before Executing Court on 17.8.2010. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.