The plaintiffs are the petitioners herein. They are aggrieved by the order of the trial Court made in I.A.No.176 of 2012 in extending the time for payment of costs, as ordered in I.A.No.332 of 2011 in O.S.No.236 of 2010.

2. The plaintiffs filed the said suit on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, for declaration and permanent injunction. On 28.2.2011, the third defendant in the said suit, who is the respondent herein, was set ex-parte. Therefore, she filed I.A.No.332 of 2011 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte order. In that application, an order came to be passed on 5.9.2011, allowing the application subject to condition to pay a sum of Rs.500/-to the plaintiffs on or before 9.9.2011. It was also observed therein that in default, the petition would stand dismissed without any further consideration. The said costs were not paid by the third defendant within the time stipulated and however, she filed I.A.No.176 of 2012 on 4.1.2012, under Section 148 read with 151 CPC to extend the time. It is the case of the third defendant therein that she was affected by Jaundice, and therefore, she could not comply with the condition within the stipulated time.

3. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs by contending that in pursuant to the default committed by the third defendant, I.A.No.332 of 2011 itself stood dismissed, and therefore, without restoring the said application, the third defendant cannot seek the relief of extension of time.

4. The trial Court allowed the application filed by the third defendant by exercising its power under Sections 148 and 151 CPC, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances stated therein and also by imposing further costs of Rs.1,500/- payable by the third defendant to the plaintiffs. Challenging the said order, the plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when I.A.No.332 of 2011 was allowed, subject to payment of costs within the stipulated time, with further condition that the I.A. will stand dismissed without further reference, if costs are not paid within the stipulated time, the third defendant cannot seek for extension of time, when the said I.A.No.332 of 2011 itself is deemed to have been dismissed by the time the application for extension of time was filed by the third defendant. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the trial Court has no power to extend the time, by exercising the power under Sections 148 and 151 CPC. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following decisions of this Court:

(a) 2013 (4) LW 626 (G. Kesavan Vs. B.C. Raman);

(b) 2012 (5) CTC 857 (K. Rajendran Vs. S. Nagarajan) and

(c) 2014 (3) CTC 757 (S. Kamalam Vs. Rajamani).

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even after expiry of the time granted in the original order, the Court has power to extend the time by exercising the power under Section 148 read with 151 CPC, and therefore, the subsequent deemed dismissal of the application for default committed by the third defendant, cannot stand in the way of the trial Court in considering the application for extension of time. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2010 (8) SCC 546 (D.V.Paul Vs. Manisha Lalwani) and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (3) CTC 418 (Gowri Ammal Vs. Murugan).

8. The point for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the Court is having power under Section 148 CPC to extend the time already granted, even after its expiry and as to whether the deemed dismissal of the application consequent upon such default, would stand in the way for considering the application for extension of time.

9. It is n