NIMMA VENKATESWARLU Vs. DEVIREDDY KRISHNAYYA ALIAS VENKATA KRISHNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner filed the suit for recovery of money, based on a promissory note, against the respondent. At the request of parties, the case was referred to Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat the parties agreed for the suit being decreed as per the plaint and the revision petitioner agreed to receive Rs.10,000.00 in full satisfaction of the decree if paid on or before 30-1 -2002. On 25-2-2002 respondent filed a petition under Section 148 CPC for extension of time alleging that he offered to pay Rs.10,000.00 to the revision petitioner on 30-1 -2002 and that the revision petitioner refused to receive the same and produced a draft dated 2-2-2002 for Rs.10,000.00. By the order under revision the trial Court allowed the said petition. Hence this revision by the plaintiff.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that even assuming that the contention of the respondent that he offered to pay the money on 30-1 -2002 and that the revision petitioner refused to receive it is true, though in fact it is not true, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to extend time, fixed in the award of the Lok Adalat, under Section 148 CPC and so the order under revision is liable to be set aside. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent when the case was taken up for hearing.

(3.) It is unnecessary for me to go into the question whether the respondent in fact offered Rs.10,000.00 to the revision petitioner on 30-1-2002 or not because as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the trial Court has no power to extend the time fixed in the award of a Lok Adalat, by invoking Section 148 CPC, which reads: