JOTHI ANAND Vs. AMIRTHA RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed in I. A. No. 6234/2005 in I. A. No. 6112/2004 in O. S. No. 9516/1996 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is under challenge before this Court.

(2.) THE conditional order passed in I. A. No. 6112/2004 in O. S. No. 9516/1996, according to both the counsels, is that the revision petitioner/defendant in O. S. No. 9516/1996 is to pay a cost of Rs. 500/- to the plaintiff on or before 3. 3. 2005. The said application was filed to reopen the suit and recall P. W. 1 for the purpose of cross-examination. Since the Defendant could not comply with the condition before 4. 3. 2005, I. A. 6112/2004 was dismissed. Subsequently, the Defendant has filed I. A. No. 6234/2005 on 11. 3. 2005 for extension of time to comply with the condition imposed in I. A. No. 6112/2004. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application holding that the Court has become functus officio following the decision reported in 2001 (1) TNLJ 291 and AIR 1988 MADRAS 241.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on the decision reported in 2006 (3) CTC 418 (Gowri Ammal Vs. Murugan and others) and contended that the Court will not become functus officio on dismissal of application for non-compliance of conditional order. A single Judge of this Court has referred the question of law to the Division Bench as to whether after the dismissal of earlier application for non-compliance of the conditional order within the time stipulated, whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for extension filed under Section 148 r/w 151 of CPC? The short facts of that case are as follows: