CHRISTEENA Vs. KOLAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 8th defendant in a suit pending before the Munsiff's Court Neyyattinkara is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned District Judge was not justified in extending the time for payment of the amount. According to the revision petitioner, the order passed in CMA 41 of 1976 on 14/07/1976 was a self working order. By the omission to deposit costs within the period mentioned in the order, the order worked itself out and there was nothing more to be done in connection with thereto. It is further contended that the remedy of the respondent, if at all, was to move for extension of time for deposit before the expiry of the period fixed and pray for a review of the order thereof. Since the respondent did not follow the above procedure, the learned District Judge should not have interfered with the order and extended the time for deposit.

(3.) The order dated 14/07/1976 in C. M. A. 41 of 1976 reads: