The court established that once a suit is barred under the Limitation Act, the court cannot extend the time for any further actions under other provisions.

This revision has been directed against the order in I.A.No.1837 of 2001, an application filed under Sections 148 & 151 of CPC and under Section 25 of the Specific Relief Act, in O.S.No.242 of 1996, a suit for specific performance of the contract, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruppur. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides has dismissed the said application on the ground that there is no reason to condone the delay of 1230 days in depositing the balance of sale consideration as per the decree in O.S.No.242 of 1996.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on 2006(3) CTC 418 (Gowri Ammal Vs. Murugan and others), would contend that this is a fit case in which the substantial justice shall be done to the revision petitioner since he has lost his son in an accident and since he was mentally upset, he could not deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- within the time stipulated by the Court, as per the decree in O.S.No.242 of 1996. The facts of the said ratio are as follows:- The respondents in CRP.PD.No.836 of 2004 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.16 of 1999, a suit for partition and separate possession. The 2nd defendant in the said suit, who is the revision petitioner therein had purchased the suit property from one Dhanapal Gounder, (D1 – father of the respondents 1 to 3 and husband of 4th respondent) in the year 1989 under a registered sale deed. The suit was decreed exparte against the 2nd defendant / revision petitioner therein. According to her, she came to know about the exparte decree only when a notice was served on her in the final decree proceedings on 21. 2002. Thereafter, she filed an application, namely, I.A.No.180 of 2002 seeking to condone the delay of 1009 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree. The delay was condoned by the trial Court on condition the petitioner pays a cost of Rs.500/- to the respondents on or before 18.03.2003. The said cost was not paid in time. Hence, the said petition to condone the delay was dismissed on 13. 2008. On 05.08.2008 the petitioner field an application I.A.No.435 of 2003 under Sections 148 and 151 of CPC to extend the time for payment of costs. But the said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 22. 2004 holding that the Court has no power under Section 148 to extend the time granted earlier as it had become functus officio. Against the said order CRP.PD.No.836 of 2004 was preferred. While disposing the said CRP the Division Bench of this Court after referring to several decisions viz., 2000(3) CTC 228 (Pakkiammal Vs. Anaiappan), 2001(3) MLJ 808 (Arthanari Vs. S. Seshagiri Rao, 2001(3) LW 254 (D.Raju Vs. N.Ramalingam), 2003(3) MLJ 770 (Angammal Vs. Ramasamy), 2005(3) MLJ 331 (K.Rangasamy Gounder Vs. Muthusamy Gounder) has observed as follows:-

"The decision rendered by the Supreme Court on this point, which is a ratio decidendi, is a law on the land, binding on all Courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Where the Supreme Court has stated that the law laid down in a particular case is the applicable law, it cannot be contended that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court has not considered the point, regarding functus officio. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts in India, but it is the mandate of the Constitution, as provided under Article 141, that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be respected by all the Courts and the counsel as well as the parties, within the territory of India.

.............

In the present case, the Trial Court simply dismissed the application stating that it had no power. But, we have concluded that the Court has got power to entertain an application under Sections 148 and 151 of CPC, to consider the merits of the matter for condoning the delay or for extending time. Admittedly, in this case, the application has been filed before the Trial Court under Sections 148 and 151 of CPC."

Under Section 28 of the Speci