The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court cannot extend the time for performance of an obligation if it is already barred by limitation, as per the provisions of Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code and the Limitation Act, 1963.

1. The petitioner is the second plaintiff in a suit for specific performance. He is aggrieved against the order of the court below in dismissing his application filed under sections 148 and 151 C.P.C. seeking extension of time to deposit the sale consideration as per the decree passed in the said suit.

2. Short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner's father filed O.S.No.177 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri against the respondent herein seeking for decree of specific performance based on an agreement of reconveyance. It is his contention that he sold the suit property to the respondent herein on 11.09.1990 for a sum of Rs.1,51,900/- and on the same day, both parties entered into an agreement of re-conveyance agreeing to re-convey the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of 10 years on receiving the same sale consideration. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner's father/original plaintiff died and consequently, the petitioner herein was arrayed as the second plaintiff in I.A.No.142/2003 dated 07.03.2003. The defendant/respondent herein remained exparte and the trial court by judgment and decree dated 28.08.2003 decreed the suit thereby directing the defendant to execute the sale deed within a period of one month after receiving the sale consideration from the second plaintiff/petitioner herein. It was also decreed that in default by the defendant, the second plaintiff is to get the sale deed executed through the Court. Further, it was decreed that the defendant or his men agents should not interfere with the suit properties.

3. The petitioner herein did not pay the sale consideration to the defendant within the time stipulated and has chosen to file an application in I.A.No.164/2007 only on 04.03.2007, i.e., nearly after 4 = years, seeking for extension of time to deposit the said sale consideration. The said application was resisted by the respondent herein. After hearing both sides, the court below rejected the application by its order dated 12.07.2007. Aggrieved against the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. In fact, this civil revision petition came to be filed with a delay of 817 days and however the same was condoned by my predecessor.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/defendant remained exparte in the said suit and therefore, he cannot oppose the application seeking for extension of time. The defendant also did not file any application under section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the contract. Thus, the decree has become final and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to seek for extension of time. The court below failed to note that the petitioner is not the original plaintiff and therefore, the extension of time for making deposit should have been granted. By taking note of the reason stated in the affidavit, even on equity, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner herein was impleaded as the second plaintiff on 07.03.2003 itself and thereafter, the suit came to be decreed on 28.08.2003. Therefore, the petitioner is fully aware of the decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the reasons assigned in the affidavit seeking for extension of time are false and the court below has rightly rejected the application. The petition filed after nearly 4 = years is barred by limitation and the court cannot extend the time beyond the time stipulated under the statute. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:

(i) 2009(8) MLJ 417(SC), Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh;

(ii) 2013(2)CTC 518, Vijay Ammal v. Ramalinga Naidu and another;

(iii) 2009(3)MLJ1267,P.Rangasamy v. Avinashi Gounder and another;

7. The point for consideration in this civil revision petition is as to whether the ap