The decree-holder in O.S.No.11/2006 filed this Civil Revision Petition assailing order dated 6-9-2011 in I.A.No.5/2011 in O.S.No.11/2006 on the file of the learned XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for brevity “the lower Court”).

2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the respondent. After the respondent was set exparte, an exparte decree was passed by the lower court on 28-11-2006. One of the conditions stipulated therein was that the petitioner shall deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.16,640/- into the Court within one month from the date of decree. The petitioner did not deposit the balance sale consideration as per the said condition. He has, however, filed I.A.No.5/2011 for condoning the delay of 1417 days and extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration.

3. In support of his application, the petitioner has averred that he has left to his native village Amaravathi in Chandapur District, Maharashtra and that his Advocate was not aware of his whereabouts, due to which he could not comply with the decretal condition regarding deposit of the balance sale consideration. The petitioner further averred that he was under the impression that the suit was pending and his Advocate was looking after the suit proceedings and that recently he came back to Hyderabad and came to know about the passing of the exparte decree through his counsel.

4. The respondent resisted the petitioner’s application by filing a counter-affidavit wherein he has questioned the bonafides of the petitioner in filing the application with the huge delay of 1417 days and prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. The lower Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner mainly on two grounds, namely, that the petitioner remained quiet for about four years after passing the exparte decree and that his averments relating to his leaving for his native place and staying there all those years, were not supported by any evidence. The lower Court further held that the petitioner failed to give satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 1417 days in filing the application and that having obtained the decree for specific performance, it is the duty of the petitioner to pursue the case with diligence. The second ground on which the lower Court declined the relief is that as per the amended provisions of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code"), the Court cannot enlarge the time beyond 30 days.

6. At the hearing, Sri D.V. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in dismissing the petitioner’s application for extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration. He submitted that the lower Court is vested with the power to extend time for payment of the balance sale consideration under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") and that therefore the lower Court has misdirected itself in holding that it has no power to extend the time beyond 30 days as stipulated under Section 148 of the Code. In support of his submission that the petitioner is entitled to extension of time, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of Madras High Court in B.V. Gururaj Vs. M.R. Rathindran (AIR 2010 Madras 129)and also on various Judgements of the Supreme Court, which found reference in the said Judgment.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

8. As per the condition contained in the decree, the petitioner is liable to deposit the balance sale consideration within one month. Admittedly, the petitioner neither complied with the said condition nor filed an application seeking extension of time before the expiry of the time stipulated by the lower Court. The petitioner filed an applica