KALLYANI AMMA Vs. KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise out of an order refusing to extend time to deposit the costs in A. S. No. 34 of 1967, wherein the revision petitioners are the appellants. The appeal was against the decree and judgment of the Munsiff, Taliparamba. It was contended in the appeal that they are entitled to the benefits of S.76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act and that they claimed fixity of tenure in respect of a land in their possession. Such a contention was not taken by them in the Trial Court. However, the appellate court permitted the appellants to raise the contention in the Trial Court and the suit was ordered to be remanded. But, the appellate court laid down a condition for remand. The condition was that the present petitioners shall pay the costs of the 1st respondent herein in the appeal within 2 weeks from 30-1-1969, which is the date of the remand order, in which case the petitioners would be permitted to establish their right on remand of the suit to the Trial Court. But, in default of payment of the costs of the 1st respondent within 2 weeks from the date of the order, it was specifically stated in the judgment of the appellate court that A. S. No. 34 of 1967 will stand dismissed with costs of the 1st respondent.

(2.) The petitioners did not deposit the amount of the costs. But, on 22-6-1969, the petitioners filed I. A. 865 of 1969 in the lower appellate court for extension of time to deposit the amount and I. A. 864 of 1969 to condone the delay in depositing the amount. The appellate court held that the order dated 30-1-1969 worked itself out by 13-2-1969, which was the day when the 2 weeks' time allowed under the order expired and as such the revision petitioners were not entitled to get the time extended. Accordingly, both the petitions were dismissed. The revision petitions are against the order made in those petitions.

(3.) The remand order has specifically provided that the deposit of the costs shall be made within 2 weeks from 30-1-1969 but, no deposit was made within the time allowed under the order. The petitions to extend time and condone delay were filed only on 22-6-1969, which was more than 4 months after the expiry of the stipulated time. The question is whether the court is competent to extend the time.