ORDER :- This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Addl. District Judge of Kottayam in C.M.P. 395/58 in O.S. 3/57 allowing an amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant under O. 6 R. 17.

2. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- reserved in a registered sale deed. The defendant contended that the price in the sale deed happened to be fixed because of the misrepresentation made by the vendor and that the vendor subsequently agreed to accept a lesser amount of Rs. 10,000/- in full satisfaction.

3. The court tried a preliminary issue whether the defendant could prove by means of oral evidence, the agreement set up in the written statement and it was held that the agreement set up cannot be proved by parole evidence. By a petition dated 17-2-1958 the defendant wanted to raise an issue as to whether he could resile from the contract and get the value of improvements and the amount paid by him.

It was ordered that as there was no such pleat in the written statement there was no need for framing such an issue. After that petition was dismissed the defendant has come forward with this petition to amend the written statement by stating that the property was purchased due to misrepresentation and that he is entitled to rescind the Contract and get back the sale price and value of improvements.

4. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the sale deed had been accepted by the defendant and his rights in the property had already been assigned by him to his son and that there was absolutely no bona fides in presenting this petition. The learned Judge has not discussed as to why the amendment was allowed.

What is stated in the order is the argument advanced by the plaintiffs learned counsel is not without force. After going through the pleadings I think that the amendment can be allowed but only on terms. An order was made that Rs. 50/- should be paid as costs on 28-2-1958 and it was also ordered that if cost is not paid then the petition would stand dismissed with costs.

5. Against this order the plaintiff has come up in revision challenging the order of the learned Judge in allowing the amendment petition. The first point that was raised war, that admittedly the cost ordered had not been paid on 28-2-1958 aid so the order that "if the cost is not paid then the petition would stand dismissed" has worked itself out and the learned Judge had therefore no power to extend the time and order the costs to be deposited on a future date.

6. Reference is made to the decision in Sreepathi Balaiah v. Darsi Ramayya, AIR 1941 Mad 708, where Wadsworth, J., observed :

"When a court has granted time within which a payment must be made and has declared that in default of payment within the time specified the proceedings will stand dismissed, there is no power under S. 148 after the date on which those proceedings would stand dismissed, to extend the time in which the payment was to be made........

To the same effect is the observation in S.A. Balakrinshna Ayyar v. Parvathammal, AIR 1928 Mad 154. In the case in AIR 1941 Mad 706 an error had been committed by the court and in such a case it was held :

"The court has inherent power to prevent a party from being damnified by the error of the courts own officer and though there is no power under S. 148 to reopen a closed matter and give an extension of time, the court has power under S. 151 to do that which is necessary for the ends of justice in order to set right the consequences of an unfortunate error committed by an officer of court." In this case there is no such thing. The order was clear that the cost had to be paid on 28-2-58 and when it is not paid the petition automatically stands dismissed and the court has no power to extend the time. On this ground alone the petition has to be dismissed.

7. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasons are given by the learned Judge for allowing the amendment and by allowing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document