P HARI Vs. ANJURU YELLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 01-10-2009 in I.A. No. 888 of 2009 in T.A. No. 53 of 2008 in A.S. No. 6 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, purported to have been filed under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as - 'the Code') with a prayer to enlarge the time granted to deposit the suit costs up to the date of deposit by accepting the treasury Challan No. 19590 dated 15-07-2009.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. Perused the material available on record.

(3.) Petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S. No. 232 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, which was filed by the respondent herein for mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed on 13-08-2007. Assailing the same, the petitioners herein have preferred appeal in A.S. No. 6 of 2008 in the lower appellate Court and also filed I. A. No. 53 of 2008 seeking to grant stay of operation of the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court, by order dated 23-01-2008, granted stay on condition of the appellants herein depositing the suit costs by 27-02-2008. Admittedly, the suit costs were not deposited within the time prescribed. However, the suit costs were deposited in the treasury vide treasury Challan No. 19590 dated 15-07-2009 and the present application was filed seeking enlargement of the time granted for deposit of the suit costs up to the date of such deposit. The lower appellate Court, relying on the judgment of P. Naser Saheb v. P. Nabi Saheb, 1957 AIR(AP) 780 wherein it was held that if any period is fixed or granted by the Court for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Code, the Court may in its discretion from time to time enlarge such period even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired, but the period prescribed under the Section can be extended only during the currency of the previous order and that once an order has become defunct, there arises no question of extending the time made under that order; dismissed the said application on the ground that there was the delay of one year five months and the appellants have also not filed any application before the expiry of the stipulated date seeking to enlarge the time.