A court has jurisdiction to enlarge the time limit fixed or granted for doing any act prescribed or allowed by the CPC, even if the period originally fixed or granted has expired, provided that the decree granting the time limit was not intended to be final.

ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Defendant No. 1 is the petitioner in this revision application. This application arises against the order dated 20-8-1976 passed in Title Appeal No. 124 of 1969 by the 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, by which the Court has extended the period granted by it in the decree by which the plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs. 815/- within one month from the date of the judgment and by which it was directed that on deposit being made the defendants were to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and in case the defendants failed to do so the plaintiff would be entitled to get possession through court.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party first party filed Title Suit No. 265 of 1962 for a declaration that he was a bona fide purchaser for value of Rs. 965/without notice of any previous purchase of the petitioner from opposite party-second party in respect of schedule I. land measuring 3 bighas 9 kathas and 12 dhurs situated in village Muraul. The suit was also for a declaration that the sale deed propounded by the petitioner was fraudulent, collusive and antedated and for a further direction to the opposite party-second party to make over the original sale deed executed in favour of opposite party-first party and to deliver possession to him and for a further direction to him to deposit the balance of consideration money within the specified period granted by the Court. The suit was for a further declaration that the certified copy of the kobala in favour of opposite party-first party be declared to have the force of the original kobala and also for mesne profits from the date of execution of the kobala to the date of recovery of possession. The plaintiff had further prayed that if for any reason the decree for possession could not be passed then a decree for Rs. 405/- principal and Rs, 144/- as interest (Total Rs. 549/-) be passed by way of damages against the defendant. Thus it is desirable to state just here in view, of the relief claimed the suit was primarily a title suit and alternatively the relief for a money decree.

3. The aforesaid title suit was dismissed against the petitioner of the present revision application. Thereafter the plaintiff-opposite party first party referred an appeal (Title Appeal No. 124 of 1969). This was ultimately allowed and the suit was decreed. By the decree the plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs. 815/- within a month from the date of the judgment and on deposit being made the defendants were directed to deliver possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and in case of failure on the part of the defendants the plaintiff was held to be entitled to get possession through the Court. The lower appellate court also declared that the certified copy of the sale deed (Ext.7) was to have the force of the original kobala as prayed for by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was also entitled to the mesne profits from the defendants which was to be determined in a separate proceeding and the judgement and decree of the trial court were set aside. The decree was prepared and signed on 7-8-1974. The plaintiff-opposite party first party failed to deposit Rs. 815/- within the time allowed by the appellate court. On 23-12-1974 the plaintiff-opposite party first party filed a petition before the appellate court with a prayer to pass the chalan for Rs. 815/- and the grounds stated in the petition was that the deposit of the aforesaid amount could not be made within the time allowed by the court because of unprecedented flood which had completely washed away the plaintiffs house and as such he was put to great hardship and could not come to Muzaffarpur to take necessary steps. According to the plaintiff-opposite party first party he managed to come to Muzaffarpur in November, 1974 and he learnt that he had to deposit the amount within a month from the date of judgment. On the above grounds the plaintiff-opposite party first party made a prayer to the Cour