Pigot and Banerjee, J.
1. We think this appeal must be dismissed. We need not deal with the case referred to by the District Judge Balkaran Rai v. Gobind Nath Tiwari I.L.R. 12 AIL 129 as to which we say nothing save that it is in some respects not on all fours with the decision f this Court in Syud Ambur Ali v. Kali Chand Doss 24 W.R. 258 but quite apart from that case we think that the present case does not come within either the spirit or the letter of Section 28 of the Court Fees Act. The memorandum of appeal was presented on the last day with an 8-anna stamp, it was received with a memorandum upon it, “the appeal within time; stamp duty insufficient Rs. 204 odd.” That was on the 24th of May, the last day. On the 27th an endorsement was made upon it, signed by the District Judge, allowing the appellant one week; on the 5th of June there is a further endorsement allowing him a fortnight, and he appears to have paid the full stamp duty on the 13th of June. We think that the District Judge was quite right in holding that these proceedings were not such as Section 28 contemplates, and were not such as to put the appeal in order when the stamp was ultimately received on the 13th of June. We think he was bound to dismiss the appeal.
2. We dismiss the appeal with costs.