ORDER : The instant civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 readwith section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2019, passed by the Commercial Court No.3, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.194/2018 titled as M/s. Mahesh Rajiv and Company v. RIICO and Others, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed due to non- deposition of the requisite Court fees in compliance of the order passed by the Commercial Court on 18.07.2019. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff at the outset submitted that the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was for recovery of Rs.1,25,73,286/- and claim of the earnest money of Rs.24,15,556/- illegally withheld by the defendants-respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though time was granted by the Commercial Court to deposit Court fees of Rs.3,78,590.72/- as per Section 21 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter read as 'the Act of 1961'), however, the appellant had only paid Rs.60 as Court fees. 4. Learned counsel submitted that an application was filed on behalf of the respondents-defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with section 151 CPC, whereby objection was taken that suit of the appellant was not maintainable in view of non- compliance of provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 11 CPC Clause (b) and (c). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on an application filed by the respondents-defendants, the Court below had granted 30 days time to file the requisite court fees. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant-plaintiff in spite of making best efforts, could not arrange the requisite money for paying the Court fees and as such, the Court below due to non-compliance of the order dated 18.07.2019 granting 30 days time to deposit the Court fees, has passed the impugned order dated 20.08.2019, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel while preferring the present appeal, initially did not pay the Court fees at the time of filing the present appeal, however, on advice being given to the appellant, the requisite Court fees of Rs.3,78,590.52/- has been paid before this Court. 8. 7. Learned counsel while preferring the present appeal, initially did not pay the Court fees at the time of filing the present appeal, however, on advice being given to the appellant, the requisite Court fees of Rs.3,78,590.52/- has been paid before this Court. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is interested in prosecuting his remedy before the Civil Court and if on account of financial hardship, the Court fees was not deposited within a stipulated time, this Court has ample power to allow the present appeal by permitting the Court fees, so deposited by the appellant-plaintiff, to be treated as the Court fees being paid in the Civil Court and as such, prayer is made that this Court may exercise its power under Section 62 of the Act of 1961 by allowing the appeal and the Court fees paid along-with the memorandum of appeal, may be permitted to be deposited before the Civil Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant also places reliance on the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in Regular First Appeal No.315/2010 titled as Smt.Tulasamma K and Ors. v. Sri Jassaram and Ors. decided by the Division Bench on 07.12.2011. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants-RIICO Mr.Gajendra Vyas submitted that the order passed by the Commercial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, may not be interfered by this Court. 11. Learned counsel submitted that at first instance while filing the suit, it was necessary that the requisite Court fees ought to have been paid by the appellant and in absence of such basic requirement of paying the Court fees, suit of the appellant-plaintiff was liable to be rejected at the threshold. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants further submitted that the Court below has not outrightly rejected the suit of the appellant, on the contrary on an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC by the respondents-defendants, thirty days time was granted to the appellant-plaintiff on 18.07.2019 to pay the requisite Court fees. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submitted that when no such compliance was made, further no application was filed to extend the time as granted, the Court below has rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submitted that when no such compliance was made, further no application was filed to extend the time as granted, the Court below has rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants-RIICO further submitted that the appellant has not stated the reasons as what prevented him from paying the requisite Court fees and only for buying time to arrange for the Court fees, the present appeal has been filed before this Court. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that even at the time of filing the instant appeal, the appellant had not paid the Court fees and it is subsequently only when the case was taken up by this Court for admission, the appellant paid the requisite Court fees. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants-RIICO further submitted that the very purpose of filing proper suit before the Court by paying proper Court fees, will be frustrated if such indulgence will be given by the First Appellate Court and as such, counsel for the respondent-RIICO has opposed the prayer, which has been made by learned counsel for the appellant. 17. We have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. There is no dispute that the appellant-plaintiff was required to pay the requisite Court fees on the suit filed by him. There is also no dispute on the fact that on an application being filed by the respondents-defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, since the suit itself was defective, the Court below granted 30 days time to the appellant to deposit the requisite Court fees. 19. This Court further finds that the time given by the Commercial Court of 30 days was not availed by the appellant and ultimately, the Commercial Court in a rightful manner, passed the order dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. 20. We also, find that section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 also confers power with the Court to use its discretion to grant time for paying deficient court fees. 21. We find that the Court below while granting 30 days time has exercised its power under section 149 CPC and as such, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 22. 21. We find that the Court below while granting 30 days time has exercised its power under section 149 CPC and as such, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 22. We, however, find that substantial right of the litigant may not be defeated only on account of some delay on the part of the litigant to make adequate arrangement for paying the Court fees. 23. We, however, do not go into the issue of actual means available or not with the present appellant to pay the requisite Court fees at first instance. 24. We, however, find that the requisite Court fees has been paid by the appellant in the first appeal and as such, it shows bona-fides of the appellant to pursue the matter in a proper and legal manner. 25. The objection of learned counsel for the respondents- defendants-RIICO that the Court below after using its discretion was left with no other option except to dismiss the suit and this Court may not exercise the power of return of Court fees to the appellant for paying the same to the Civil Court, suffice it to say by this Court that if the requisite Court fees is paid by the appellant-plaintiff, all the defences available to the respondents- defendants will not be taken away in any manner and as such, the defendant will have every right to take all the factual and legal pleas before the Court below. 26. We have also gone through the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court, therein the High Court while exercising its power as per Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter read as 'the Act of 1958'), permitted the Court fees paid in the first appeal to be transferred to the Civil Court and as such, while allowing the first appeal, suit was restored. The provision contained in Section 62 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 is pari- materia with Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. 27. We, therefore, considering all the aspects, deem it proper to allow this appeal and we accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.08.2019. 28. The provision contained in Section 62 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 is pari- materia with Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. 27. We, therefore, considering all the aspects, deem it proper to allow this appeal and we accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.08.2019. 28. This Court, while allowing the present civil first appeal, permits the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to issue a certificate in favour of the appellant of paying the requisite Court fees and further the said certificate may also permit refund of fees to the appellant through the District Collector. 29. The appellant-plaintiff is directed to file an application before the District Collector along-with the certificate to be issued by the Registrar (Judicial), for refund of his Court fees. 30. The appellant, immediately on receipt of getting refund of his Court fees, is further directed to deposit the requisite Court fees before the Commercial Court within a period of seven (7) days. The failure of depositing of the Court fees within seven days after receipt of Court fees from the District Collector, will entail dismissal of the suit and the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2019 will be revived. 31. We find that the respondent-RIICO has been dragged into litigation and as such, they need to be compensated by this Court. 32. We, considering the entire facts of the case, find that the appellant will pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent- defendant-RIICO on the next date of hearing before the Court below. 33. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed in view of the aforesaid observations.