JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.6.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No.96-S/13 of 1999, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’), has assailed the legality and validity thereof on the ground, inter alia, that the same being result of mis-appreciation and mis-reading of evidence available on record is perverse and is neither legally nor factually sustainable. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’), has filed a suit for possession of land bearing khasra No.310 measuring 17 biswas situated in Chak Mool-Matiana by way of redemption of mortgage and for rendition of accounts under H.P. Debt Reduction Act, on the ground that the same was mortgaged with possession by his predecessor-in-interest with one Chimna Ram, father of defendant in the year 1965, for a sum of Rs.200/-, which was usufructuary mortgage. The defendant had resisted and contested the suit on several grounds, however, mainly that the same is time barred. Learned trial Judge after holding full trial had dismissed the suit. Learned lower Appellate Court on reversal of the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Judge had decreed the suit vide judgment and decree impugned before this Court in the present appeal, the operative part whereof reads as follows:- “As a result of above finding and discussion, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Whilst reversing the impugned findings recorded by the lower court under issues No.1 to 4, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed and possession of the suit land, subject to payment of Rs.200/-as redemption money to the defendant-respondent within a period of six months henceforth, failing which the suit will stand dismissed. …” 3. When the appeal came to be listed for hearing, learned Senior Advocate representing the appellant has pointed out that since the respondent-plaintiff has not paid the redemption money, i.e. Rs.200/-to the appellant-defendant within six moths from the date of judgment and decree impugned in the present appeal, therefore, on expiry of the time so granted by learned lower appellate Court, the suit stands already dismissed. 4. 4. On time granted to learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff for verification of the factual position qua this aspect of the matter, he apprised this Court that the redemption money as directed by learned lower appellate Court has not been paid to the appellant-defendant. 5. On behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, an application, registered as CMP No.1258 of 2012 for extension of time in making payment of the sum of Rs.200/- to the appellant-defendant under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed. 6. Having gone through the record and taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that the time in making payment of the redemption money can only be extended by the lower appellate Court which had fixed the same and not by any other Court including this Court. It is held so by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.135 of 2000 titled Surrinder Singh Sautha Versus Raja Yogindra Chandra, decided on 13.6.2011. The operative part of this judgment reads as follows:- “In my view, it is not necessary to either cite the judgments or to make detailed reference to the arguments because I am of the considered view that time, if at all, can only be extended by the Court which fixed the time and not by this Court. It was the learned lower Appellate Court which fixed the time for making good the deficiency in the Court fees. Any application for extension of time had to be filed before the learned lower Appellate Court itself and would not lie to this Court. Therefore, CMP No.1159 of 2010 is rejected as being not maintainable in this Court with liberty reserved to the plaintiff to move proper application before the learned lower Appellate Court. As far as the main appeal is concerned, in view of the direction of the learned lower Appellate Court the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed and therefore, the present appeal is infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. As far as the main appeal is concerned, in view of the direction of the learned lower Appellate Court the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed and therefore, the present appeal is infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. It is, however, made clear that in case the learned lower Appellate Court holds that the application for extension of time for making good the deficiency in the Court fees is maintainable and also extends the time in filing the Court fees then the appellant-defendant shall be at liberty to file a fresh appeal and in such appeal he can take up all grounds including the grounds taken in this appeal. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.” 7. The respondent-plaintiff is thus at liberty to approach the lower appellate Court for extension of time in making the payment of redemption money to the appellant-defendant on all such grounds as raised in the application registered as CMP No.1258 of 2012 or any other and further ground available to him in accordance with law. 8. This appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the application registered as CMP No.1258 of 2012. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.