( 1 ) THE instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-7-2004 passed by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, in LA. No. 114 of 2004 in O. S. No. 4089 of 2003.

( 2 ) AT the stage of admission, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had taken notice and addressed arguments for the final disposal of the revision petition.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondents filed the suit for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed ex parte. The petitioner, therefore, filed I. A. No. 1171 of 2003 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree under order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil procedure (for brevity the Code ). After having heard on either side, the Court below allowed that application on 21-1-2004 on the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards costs within 8 days from the date of that order. On the premise that on account of the sad demise of the grandmother of the petitioner s Counsel, the Counsel could not deposit the amount within the time and that despite the tragedy the Counsel rushed to the Court and offered the amount of Rs. 1,000/- to the Counsel of his adversary who refused to receive the same and that when the matter was brought to the notice of the Court, the Court advised the Counsel to file a petition seeking leave to deposit the costs in the legal aid section, the petitioner filed I. A No. 114 of 2004 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the amount pursuant to the conditional order passed earlier. That application having been dismissed under the impugned order, the petitioner is now seeking to assail the same.

( 4 ) THE Court below passed a cryptic order while dismissing the I. A. No 114 of 2004. The order is to the following effect"heard both sides. There is no reasonable ground to allow the petition The Court passed order conditionally, but the petitioner failed to comply the same The petition is dismissed without costs "

( 5 ) OBVIOUSLY the conditional order was passed on 21-1-2004 while allowing the application in I. A. No. 1171 of 2003 filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. The conditional order directed the defendant to deposit costs within 8 days from the date of that order. In ordinary course, therefore, the petitioner should have deposited the amount on or before 29-1-2004. The case of the petitioner was that there was a tragedy in the house of his Counsel and despite the same, he rushed to the Court on 30-1-2004 and offered the amount to the Counsel of his adversary who refused to receive the same. Obviously the application seeking leave was filed on 31-1-2004 ie. , two days after the expiry of the conditional order. The ground that the applicant could not deposit the amount within the time on account of the tragedy in the house of the Counsel of the petitioner seems to be reasonable and, in my considered view, affords sufficient cause to exercise the discretion of the Court and permit the petitioner to deposit the amount. The Court below obviously failed to appreciate the said ground. It has neither accepted nor rejected the same. The impugned order, which is bereft of any reason, is liable to be set aside on that ground itself.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents raised an objection that since the application had been filed by the petitioner beyond the date of expiry of the conditional order, the Court could not enlarge the time under Section 148 of the code

( 7 ) THE short point that falls for determination is as to whether an application seeking enlargement of time could be maintained even after the date of expiry of the conditional order.

( 8 ) TO buttress the contention that such an application should precede the date of expiry of the conditional order, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents seeks to place reliance upon a Division bench Judgment of this Court in P. Nasar saheb v P. Nabi Saheb, AIR 1957 AP 780. It was held int

Click Here to Read the rest of this document