1. ' The appellant has impugned the order, dated 7-8-1999 passed by Banking Court-II, Hyderabad dismissing an application under section 151, C.P.C. Read with Order VII, Rule 11(b); C.P.C. And section 3 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997.
2. ' The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that appellant Lashkari instituted suit for declaration, injunction and settlement of accounts. The said suit was contested by the party concerned. On 10-4-1999 the trial Court passed an order requiring the plaintiff/appellant to pay ad valorem court-fee on the suit amount of Rs,2,00,000 within a period of 7 days. These directions do not seem to have been complied with. Learned counsel for appellant also admits noncompliance.
3. It appears that on 20-4-1999 the appellant moved an application for recalling the orders directing him to pay court-fees. Certified copy of the application is available at page 93 of this file. There is nothing on record as to what appended to this application. The memo. Of appeal is also silent. Be that as it may on the same day i,e, 20-4-1999 when afore-mentioned application under section 151, C.P.C. Was moved, the appellant also moved another application under section 114 read with section 151 requesting learned lower Court for review of orders rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Which was disallowed. Neither copy of order rejecting the plaint nor the order disallowing the review application has been placed on record which fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. It however, seems that the appellant again moved on 26- 7-1999 an application under section 151, C.P.C. Read with Order VII, Rule 11(b) and section 3 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, inter alia, requesting the trial Court to recall the order, dated 24-7-1999 of dismissal of suit which has also been dismissed under the impugned order, dated 7-8-1999.
4. ' We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. No legal infirmity, error or irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel. He has also pressed into service no tangible ground in support of this appeal. This appeal also does not appear to be competent in the afore-stated circumstances. It is accordingly dismissed.