D RAJU Vs. N RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.6.2000 passed in unnumbered I.A.No.of 2000 in O.S. No. 389 of 1998 (C.R.19. Register No. 1348, dt. 31.1.2000) by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam.

(2.) LEARNED District Munsif by the impugned order has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein for the grant of extension of time for payment of costs awarded in I.A. No. 1056 of 1999 for a period of four weeks from 3.1.2000. LEARNED District Munsif found that the suit O.S. No. 380 of 1998 was decreed ex parte and the petition, I.A. No. 1056 of 1999 was filed to set aside the ex parte decree and that petition was ordered on condition that the petitioner should pay to the respondent in I.A. No. 1056 of 1999 a sum of Rs. 250/- as costs on or before 3.1.2000. In I.A. No. 1056 of 1999, the learned District Munsif has ordered that on payment of Rs. 250/- on or before 3.1.2000, the petition would be allowed and on failure to pay the money, the petition would be dismissed. The above order was passed on 21.12.1999. The learned District Munsif also directed the matter to be posted on 4.1.2000. On 4.1.2000, the learned District Munsif found that the cost, as ordered, was not paid and there was no representation for the petitioner therein and hence, he dismissed the petition I.A. No. 1056 of 1999. This order, as already observed by me, was passed on 4.1.2000 and that order has become final.

(3.) LEARNED counsel referred to the decision of this Court in Seethai Ammal v. Vikundam, V.C. (2000 2 L.W. 506 = (2000 (III) CTC 461) wherein S.S. Subramani, J. has held that the Court has jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extension of time even though the original order was passed to the effect that if the cost is not paid within the prescribed time, the petition shall stand dismissed. The learned Judge also held that the conditional order meant that a further order is to be passed on the next hearing and hence, the Court has jurisdiction to extend time. LEARNED counsel also referred to the decision of this Court in Pakkiammal v. Anaiappan (2000 (III) CTC 228) wherein V. Kanagaraj, J. held that extension of time to comply with the order of court could be allowed even if it is sought after expiry of period originally fixed by the Court. LEARNED counsel referred to another decision of this Court in Muniammal v. Sakkubai (1987) 100 L.W. 1191 = AIR 1988 Madras 241 wherein this Court has taken the view that the Court has the power to extend time if the court has not become functus officio . LEARNED counsel therefore submitted that the view taken by the learned District Munsif is against the principles laid down in the various decisions cited by him and hence, this Court should do justice and interfere with the order passed by the learned District Munsif.