PAKKIAMMAL Vs. ANAIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.392 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet is the petitioner in this civil revision petition and he has filed this revision against the fair and decretal order dated 1.4.1997 made in I.A. No.1341 of 1995 in I.A.No.1597 of 1994 in O.S.No.392 of 1989.

(2.) WHEN the above matter was taken up for consideration, in the presence of both the learned counsel, on perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that I.A.No.1341 of 1995 had been filed before the lower court under Section 151, CPC praying to restore the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9 by the petitioner which had been dismissed by the court below on 18.1.1995; that the court below had allowed the petition filed on the part of the petitioner on condition to pay the costs on or before 18.1.1995, but the petitioner would come forward to say that in spite of the same being intimated by his lawyer, on account of ill-health, he was not able to comply with the condition imposed by this Court resulting in the order passed in favour of the petitioner having come to be lapsed.

(3.) BOTH the above orders are pointed to the ample powers conferred on courts, in enlarging the time even when the application for extension of time is made after the expiry of the time originally fixed. By such arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would substantiate his point stating that the lower court instead of dismissing the application filed on his part, should have allowed the same with extension of time already granted even if the condition imposed had not been complied with within the prescribed time.