S.V. Bhatt, J.

Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and Sri N.Siva Reddy for respondents.

2. The legal representatives of sole plaintiff and sole defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2000 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, are the parties in the instant revision. The revision petitioner is the legal representative of 1st defendant. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed I.A.No.58 of 2011 in the Court of Additional Judge, Anantapur to grant time to deposit the balance sale consideration in terms of the decree and the judgment dated 30.09.2005 in O.S.No.6 of 2000, the application was allowed on 04.01.2012. Hence, the Revision Petition at the instance of 2nd defendant/2nd respondent.

3. The application for enlargement of time was filed under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The counsel appearing for the parties have stated that Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the Act) is correct provision of law for relief of extension of time or similar reliefs. The quoting of wrong provision of law in I.A.No.58 of 2011 is not contested and arguments are advanced on scope, jurisdiction and discretion available under Section 28 of