1. The plaintiff, Ram Dial, sued to recover money due to him on a bond executed by the defendant it. He filed his plaint on the 15th May 1922, which was the first day of Limitation. The Munsarim made a report hat although the suit had been properly valued the Court-fee paid was insufficient. There up on the Court gave the plaintiff time up to the 19th May to make good the deficiency he deficiency was made good on the 17th May and the plaint was then registered. At the trial the defendant pleac1ed, a most other things, that the suit was barred by arbitrator. The Court found on the merits for the plaintiff, but held that the suit was barred by limitation on the authority Jainti Prasad v. Bechu Singh 15 A. 65 : A.W.N. (1893) 29 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.s.) 758. The plaintiff in revision urges that that decision is no longer law and that, under Order VII, Rule 11, Clause (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court had power in its discretion to allow the Plaintiff further time in which to make good the deficiency of Court-fee and that if such deficiency were made good within the time prescribed the fact that in the meantime limitation had expired would not affect the suit. It seems to me that this contention is correct. The rule in Jainti Prasad v. Bechu Singh 15 A. 65 : A.W.N. (1893) 29 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.s.) 758 was not followed in the other High Courts. It seems to me that, under Order VII, Rule 11, Clause (c), read with Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Legislature deliberately intended to supersede that decision. A similar view is taken, in Gaya Loan Office Limited v. Awadh Behari Lal 37 Ind. Cas. 507 : 1 P.L.J. 420 : 3 P.L.W. 514. In my opinion, the Court below was wrong in dismissing the suit on the ground cf limitation. As on all other points the Court below has found in favour of the plaintiff. I set aside the decree of the Court below and decree the plaintiff's claim with costs in both Courts.