Granting extension of time is the discretion of the Court.

This is a petition for extension of time granted in C.M.P. No. 11138 of 1972 in A.S.No. 61 of 1972. A.S.No. 61 of 1972 is against an order passed by the lower Court declaring that the appellants are trespassers on the suit lands. The contention of the appellants is that they are cultivating tenants and, as such, there must be a declaration to the effect that they are cultivating tenants and not trespassers. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners herein were in possession and they continued to be in possession even after the filing of the appeal in this Court by virtue of the stay order. Unfortunately, the petitioners did not comply with the conditions mentioned in the stay order granted by Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., as early as 7th July, 1972. Subsequent to that it is alleged by Mr. T.R. Mani the learned Counsel for the respondents, that delivery has been effected as early as 19th January, 1973 owing to the fact that the conditions made in the stay petition have not been complied with. Nevertheless, it is admitted by Mr. T.R. Mani that the crops now standing on the suit lands, measuring about 2 acres and odd, are raised by the petitioners herein. By my order, dated 1st November, 1972, I have also extended the time for complying with the original order passed by Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., as early as 7th July, 1972 . It is clear that the whole matter is at large and the question as to whether the petitioners are trespassers or not, has to be decided in the pending appeal. It is needless to say that there cannot be any finality with regard to the orders passed in the Interlocutory Application pending disposal of the above appeal. To substantiate this principle we have decisions such as Mahanth RomDas v. Ganga Das1, and the recent decision of this Court rendered by Kailasam, J., in Periasami Asari and another v. President, llluppur Panchayat Board, llluppur and 8 others2 has been cited. Mr. Kumaraswamy Pillai, argues to the effect that the Court has ample powers to grant extension of time even if a petition is filed subsequent to the expiry of the stipulated period. I am in complete agreement with his proposition. But, nevertheless, it is purely in the discretion of the Court to decide whether to grant such an extension. If the Court feels that there is no valid ground made out for such extension, it can easily dismiss the application for extension. But, taking into consideration the facts of this case and also the averments made in the affidavit for extension of time, I am satisfied that the petitioners must be given indulgence to extend the time granted to them. They have already deposited Rs. 1,500 on 4th December, 1972 even though same ought to have been deposited by 15th November, 1972. The subsequent deposit for pisanam crops has to be made only on or before 15th April, 1973. I direct the petitioners to deposit rent due for the pisanam crops on or before 15th April, 1973 and continue to comply with my order dated 1st November, 1972, hereafter. The delay in paying the kar rent which has been paid subsequently on 4th December, 1972, is excused. As regards the payment of Rs. 3000 directed to be paid on or before 15th January, 1973, the same has not yet been paid by the petitioners herein. It is represented that this money will be deposited by the Petitioners within one week from this date into the trial Court. Hence the said delay in depositing the amount is also excused. Hence the time to deposit the aforesaid amount is extended by one week.

2. The next point that has to be considered is the delivery alleged to have been effected on 19th January, 1973. It is clear from the facts of the case that the crops standing on the suit lands is that of the petitioners herein. Mr. T.R. Mani produces the delivery athatchi for having taken delivery of the suit land on 19th January, 1973. It is stated by Mr. Kumaraswamy Pillai that such delivery, has not been recorded by Court as yet. But, nevertheless, as stated by Mr. T.R. Mani