Das, J.This application is directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Shahabad, dated the 28th October 1922.

2. The petitioners were the defendants in a suit filed against them by the opposite party in the Court below. On the 16th of March 1922 the Court came to the conclusion that the Court-fees paid by the plaintiffs upon the plaint were insufficient and the Court directed the plaintiffs to pay the, deficit Court-fees en or before the 19th April 1922. On the 19th April 1922 the plaintiffs were unable to comply with the order of the learned Subordinate Judge and they asked for time and the Court gave them time till the 20th of May only. On the 20th of May they again applied for time and the Court gave them time till the 22nd of June. On the 22nd of June the plaintiffs made another application for further time to enable them to pay the deficit Court-fees. The Court declined to accede to their application and rejected their plaint under the provision of Order VI, Rule 11(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter, the opposite party presented an application under Order IX, Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code for restoration of the suit.

3. It was contended before the Con it by the petitioners that the only remedy of the plaintiffs was to apply under Order XI, VII, Rule 1 of the CPC and that neither Order IX, Rule 9, nor Section 151 gave any power to the Court to restore the suit after it had rejected the plaint and bad signed the decree. The learned Subordinate Judge conceded that an application under Order IX, Rule 9 was not maintainable. He also thought that the plaintiffs could not apply under Order XLVIII, Rule 1 of the Code. The reason that he gives for this opinion may be stated in the words of the learned Subordinate Judge. It is as follows:

It is clear from the language of the order of dismissal that the plaint was rejected under the provision of Order VII, Rule 11(c) though it is not clearly stated there. There is no special provision in the Code for an aggrieved party to get an order made under that rule to be considered and reviewed.

4. Having rejected the contention of the petitioners that the only remedy of the plaintiffs was to apply under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code, the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to consider whether he could give the plaintiffs any relief u/s 151 of the Code. He came to the conclusion that there was power in the Court to restore the suit u/s 151 of the Code and that, in the circumstances, he should exercise that power. He accordingly ordered that upon the plaintiffs depositing the deficit Court-fees and paying Rs. 100 as costs to the defendants, the suit would be restored.

5. In my opinion, there was no power in the learned Subordinate Judge to restore the suit u/s 151 of the Code. The order rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code operated as a decree, and Order XX, Rule 3 provides "that a judgment once signed shall not afterwards be altered or added to save as provided by Section 152 or on review." There can be no doubt, in my opinion, that once an order of the Court is perfected, there is absolutely no power in that Court under its inherent jurisdiction either to alter or add to that order, save as provided by Section 151 or on review. The order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge must accordingly be set aside.

6. It is, however, contended by Mr. P.K. Sen on behalf of the opposite party that in coming to the conclusion that an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code was not maintainable, the learned Subordinate Judge declined the jurisdiction which was vested is him by law.

7. Mr. Sultan Ahmed on behalf of the opposite party contends before us that, in point of fact, there was no application under Order XLVII, Rule 1, before the Court and that, therefore, we are at liberty to disregard the view of the learned Subordinate Judge expressed on this point. There is, in my opinion, no doubt that the learned Subordinate Judge had power to review its order rejecting the petition under Order VII, Rule 11(c). I do not say whether, in the circumstances of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge would have been right in reviewing the order. That point is not before us and it is not right that we should express our opinion on it; but all that we do say is this, that there was complete power in the Court under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code to review the order passed by it in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It is quite true that there was no application, on behalf of the opposite party asking the Court to deal with the application as an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code; but the Court having taken the view that it had no jurisdiction whatever to review its own order in rejecting the plaint, it was plainly impossible for the opposite party to ask the Court to deal with that application as an application for review.

8. In the circumstances, I think, that the opposite party should have an opportunity to ask the Court to deal with his application as an application for review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code.

9. We set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge and direct that, upon the opposite party paying the proper Court-fees upon his application as an application for review, the learned Subordinate Judge will proceed to deal with the application of the opposite party as an application for review.

10. The petitioners are entitled to the costs of this application, hearing fee three gold mohurs.

11. The learned Subordinate Judge will proceed to deal with this application within a month from the time he receives the record from this Court. If within that time the Court fees are not paid by the opposite party upon the application considered as an application for review, his application will stand dismissed. If, within the time allowed, the Court-fees are paid, the learned Subordinate Judge will proceed to dispose of the application without any further adjournment.

12. The record will be sent down forthwith.

Kulwant Sahay, J.

13. I agree.