ORDER: C.R.P.No.2854 of 2001: This revision is directed against the order of Sub Court, Kulithalai in I.A.No.220 of 2000 in A.S.SR.No.302 of 2000 (18.4.2001) dismissing the Application filed under Secs.148-A and 151, C.P.C. to set aside the order passed on 27.10.2000.

C.R.P.No.2855 of 2001: This revision is directed against the order of Sub Court, Kulithalai in I.A.No.221 of 2000 in A.S.SR. No.302 of 2000 (dated 18.4.2001) of dismissing the application seeking for extension of time for payment of cost.

2. Relevant facts briefly be stated thus:

Revision petitioner/D-1 is pitted against her husband. She is the first wife of the first respondent/Ramasamy. Saroja and Jeyalakshmi are their daughters. Plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 viz., Ramasamy and his second wife Angammal filed suit in O.S.No.34 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kulithalai for Permanent Injunction restraining revision petitioner/D-1 and her men from interfering with plaintiffs possession of the suit properties. Suit properties relate to landed properties in Sithalaivai village. The suit was decreed on 23.3.2000.

3. A.S.SR.No.302 of 2000 and I.A.No.104 of 2000: Revision petitioner/D-1 preferred this appeal with a delay of five days. Along with the appeal, revision petitioner filed I.A.No.104 of 2000 to condone the delay of five days in filing the appeal. The respondents’ counsel made an endorsement stating ‘no objection’. The Petition was allowed on condition to pay Rs.100 as cost on or before 23.10.2000, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed. The case was adjourned to be called on 24.10.2000. On 24.10.2000 the Advocate were on boycott. Hence, the case was adjourned to 27.10.2000. Cost not paid; Since the conditional order was not complied with. I.A.No.104 of 2000 and Application to condone the delay in filing the appeal was dismissed.

4. Revision petitioner/D-1 did not immediately file application to set aside the order. According to her, she was suffering from Typhoid from 10.10.2000 to 12.11.2000. Hence, could to contact the counsel to comply with conditional order. Medical Certificate (dt.13.11.2000) was produced as Ex.A-1.

5. I.A.Nos.220 of 2000 and 221 of 2000: I.A.220/2000 was filed to set aside the order dated 27.10.2000. I.A.No.221 of 2000 was filed for extension of time for payment of the conditional cost. Both applications were resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs contending that the applications are filed only to protract the proceedings.

6. Upon consideration of the rival contentions of both parties, learned Subordinate Judge dismissed both applications finding that after passing conditional order the Court had become functus officio. The trial Judge was of the view that after passing of the conditional order the Court is not in seisin of the matter and therefore, power under Sec.148, C.P.C. cannot be exercised to extend the time for payment of conditional cost.

7. Aggrieved over dismissal of her application, revision petitioner/D-1 has preferred these revisions. Learned counsel for revision petitioner/D-1 submitted that under Sec.148, C.P.C., Court is empowered to extend time even after the expiry of the period originally fixed. Reliance is placed upon: (1) Pakkiammal v. Anaiappan, (2000)3 M.L.J. 132: (2000)3 C.T.C. 228; (2) A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 137.

8. Laying emphasis upon the decisions reported in D.Raju v. N.Ramalingam, (2001)3 L.W. 254 learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the facts of the case after I.A.No.104 of 2000 was dismissed on 27.10.2000, the trial Court had become functus officio and hence, power under Sec.148, C.P.C. is not available to the Court to extend the time.

9. Upon careful consideration of the submissions of both sides and other available materials, the following points arise for determination in these revisions:

(i) Whether Sec.148, C.P.C. gives automatic right to the party to get extension of time?

(ii) Considering the conduct of revision petitioner/appellant/D-1 in not complying with the conditional

Click Here to Read the rest of this document