( 1 ) IN this Civil Revision Petition, Notice before Admission was ordered on 12-10-1998 and the respondent was served on 6-11-1998. But, she did not choose to appear in this Court either in person or through a Counsel. Hence, this civil Revision Petition is being disposed of on merits.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge passed in LA. No. 330 of 1998 in O. S. No. 46 of 1997 dated 24-7-1998, whereunder the application filed by the defendant under Section 148 CPC seeking enlargement of time granted for filing the written statement and payment of costs was dismissed, the defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

( 3 ) I have gone through the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, and I have no hesitation to observe that the Junior Civil Judge failed to appreciate the facts of the case, and by placing reliance on a judgment in p. V. Chalapathi vs. T. Subba Reddy and another, dismissed the Interlocutory application.

( 4 ) FROM the order, it is seen that in a suit for injunction filed by therespondent herein, the Court seemed to have adjourned the matter on 11-6-1998 to 29-6-1998 for filing written statement with costs of Rs. 150/- as the petitioner herein might not have filed the written statement within a reasonable time. The Court further observed that if the order is not complied with, the petition stands dismissed. To that extent, the Court is right in passing the order. But, the Court failed to take the subsequent facts into consideration. It is not in dispute that on 26-6-1998, the petitioner was brutally beaten by unknown persons and he was admitted in the King George Hospital, visakhapatnam on the next day i. e. , on 27-6-1998. The incident was also reported in the local editions of the newspapers. In the meantime, while he was in hospital, he might have instructed his Counsel to seek extension of time to file written statement and also to pay the costs awarded. On the basis of the instruction of the petitioner, his Counsel seemed to have filed the petition under Section 148 CPC seeking enlargement of time granted for filing written statement and payment of costs, and the application seemed to have come up for hearing on 24-7-1998. In the meantime, the petitioner seemed to have been discharged on 18-7-1998. The learned Judge takes notice of the discharge of the petitioner from the Hospital and draws an adverse inference for not filing the written statement, without reference to his physical and mental condition in the light of the unforeseen attack on him which made him to be hospitalised for nearly three weeks. Immediately, the Court relies upon the judgment referred to above and dismissed the application by holding that the order passed by him in I. A. No. 267 1988 dated 11-6-1998 is self-operative and the Court has no power to extend the time as the order itself has worked out. I have seen the Judgment of this Court. The case arose under Specific relief Act and the Court passed a conditional order granting one month s time to deposit the balance sale consideration failing which the suit stands dismissed. When an application is filed seeking extension of time, the Court dismissed the application as the Court has become functus officio as the suit itself was disposed of. Further in that case the substantive rights of the parties were finally adjudicated and in this case extension of time is in the realm of procedural law. The Court failed to note this distinction and blindly dismissed the application. I am of the confirmed view that the said Judgment cannot be pressed into service in a case of this nature.

( 5 ) PROCEDURAL Laws are meant to see that Justice is done to the parties, but not to subvert the same on technicalities. Even though the application is filed under Sec. 148 CPC, under Section 151cpc, the Court is having ample powers to extend the time, in exercise of the Inherent Jurisdiction vested in it, to prevent miscarriage of Justice. The responden