(POLAVARAPU) ANKAYYA Vs. (GADDAMANUGU) SUBHADRAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revision petitions filed by defendant 2 in O. S. No. 446 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif of Bezwada. O. S. No. 446 of 1925 instituted by the plaintiff Subhadrayya was allowed on 7 April to be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh suit, but he was directed to pay costs of defendant 2 (the petitioner before me) on or before 7 May 1926.

(2.) The material portion of the order is as follows: the plaintiff will pay defendant 2's costs Rupees 56-4-0 incurred till now within one month from this date and that in default the suit will stand dismissed with costs.

(3.) The costs were as a matter of fact paid, on 8 May 1926 into Court. It will be noticed that it was just one day too late having regard to the time mentioned in the decree. The plaintiff therefore filed an application in the District Munsif's Court purporting to be under Section 148 Civil P.C., asking the Court to extend the time mentioned in the decree for payment of defendant 2's costs. That application was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time Under Section 148 of the Code. Subsequently the plaintiff applied again to the District Munsif for extension of time, the application taking the form of an application to review the prior order passed by the District Munsif. The plaintiff quoted the decision in Periamuthirian V/s. Karuppanna Muthirian [1906] 29 Mad. 370 as an authority for the position that the Court could in such cases grant the prayer for extension of time. The District Munsif held on this occasion that he had power, and on the merits came to the conclusion that a proper case had been made out for granting the review and extending the time. Against that order defendant 2 preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Bezwada. The Subordinate Judge held that in the circumstances no appeal lay to his Court, and that defendant 2's remedy if any was to apply to the High Court. He accordingly dismissed the appeal but made no order as to the costs of the appeal. Defendant 2 has accordingly filed two revision petitions to the High Court, Civil Revn. Petn. No. 556 of 1928 being against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge on appeal and Civil Revn. Petn. No. 656 of 1928 being against the order passed by the District Munsif on the second occasion.