PICHAMMAL WIFE OF CHINNAIYAN Vs. ANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for petitioners.

(2.) THE revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the Trial Court in O. S. No. 440/1998 on the file of III Additional District Munsif at Kallakurichi. The suit was dismissed for default on 31. 10. 2002 for non-appearance of both the plaintiffs. In I. A. No. 390/2003 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing Order 9 Rule 9 application a conditional order was passed on 21. 2. 2003 as to the payment of costs and the same was ordered to be paid on or before 27. 2. 2003 and the matter when called on 28. 2. 2003 the application was closed for non-payment of costs.

(3.) IT is represented that the cost was not paid and I. A. No. 883/2003 was filed by the petitioners herein praying for adjournment of one week time for payment of costs. The said I. A. No. 883/2003 was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the Court has no power to extend the time when the Court has become functus officio as per decision rendered in D. RAJU V. N. RAMALINGAM reported in 2001 (1) TNLJ page 291. In the said decision it is inter-alia observed by the Honourable High Court as under :