After default in complying courts order no petition was maintainable.

This revision is directed against the order made in I.A.No.1506A/2002 in O.S.No.112/2000 by the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, extending the time to pay the conditional cost, by restoring I.A.No.658/2002.

2.The revision arises under the following circumstances:-

O.S.No.112/2002 was filed by the Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff for declaration and Permanent Injunction. The suit property relates to property in New S.No.549/20 (Old S.No.89) and the cart track thereon and prayed for 20 lincs on the eastern side. The Plaintiff traces his title to the Sale Deed dated 13.8.1973 under which the Plaintiff and his father Karupanna Gounder have earlier filed the suit in O.S.No.10/1976 for declaring their right and title regarding the suit cart track. In the said suit, in I.A.No.130/1976, an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed to note down the physical features of the cart track. The suit O.S.No.112/ 2000 was filed alleging that the Defendants are attempting to cause damage to the suit cart track and the Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his right to the cart track and for Permanent Injunction.

3. The suit was filed on 23.3.2000. The Defendants have entered appearance. But they have not filed the Written Statement. On 21.6.2002, for non filing of Written Statement, the Defendants were set exparte; the suit was decreed exparte on 24.6.2002. To set aside the exparte Decree, the Defendants have filed I.A.No.658/2002. That application was allowed on condition of payment of cost of Rs.5000/- on or before 21.10.2002. The application was ordered to be called on 22.10.2002. The cost was not paid and since the conditional order was not complied with, I.A.No.658/2002 was dismissed on 22.10.2002.

4.I.A.No.1506/2002:-

This application was filed under Or.9, R.9 CPC r/w Sec.151 CPC to restore I.A.No.658/2002 which has been dismissed on 22.10.2002. This application was filed on 30.10.2002. Objection raised by the Plaintiff that after dismissal of the petition in I.A.No.658/2002, the Court has become functus officio was negatived by the High Court. I.A.No.1506/2002 was allowed, ordering restoration of I.A.No.658/2002 and extending time for paying the cost.

5. Aggrieved over the order of restoring I.A.No.658/2001 and extending time for payment of cost, Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff has preferred this revision. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that on the facts of the case, trial Court has become functus officio after final order was passed in I.A.No.658/2002 and hence the Court had no power to extend the time by restoring the application. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision reported in 2001 1 TLNJ 291.

6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Court has the power to extend time fixed to pay the cost. The learned counsel has submitted that Section 148 CPC should be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice. Submitting that after the Amendment Act 2002, the Court has the power to extend the time by thirty days to do any act prescribed or allowed by the Court and that the District Munsif has rightly ordered restoration of I.A.No.658/2002 and that there is no sufficient reason warranting interference.

7. Upon consideration of the submissions and the impugned order and the relevant materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this revision.

(i) Whether the Court has powers to enlarge the time fixed or granted by the Court to pay the cost by restoring I.A.No.658/2002 which was dismissed on 22.10.2002 ?;

(ii) Whether Section 148 CPC empowers the Court to extend the time to pay the cost condition precedent?;

and;

(iii)Whether the impugned order invoking the inherent power under section 151 CPC enlarging the time can be sustained?'

8.I.A.No.658/2002 was filed to set aside the exparte decree passed on 24.6.2002. For non compliance of the conditional order by paying the cost, the application was dismiss