The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to extend the time for compliance with its orders even after the expiry of the specified time limit.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer in CRP.No.2403 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket order dated 18.07.2018 made in I.A.No.290 of 2018 in I.A.No.529 of 2017 in O.S.No.89 of 2013 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.

CRP.No.2404 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket order dated 18.07.2018 made in I.A.No.291 of 2018 in I.A.No.531 of 2017 in O.S.No.90 of 2013 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.

1. These Civil Revision petitions have been filed challenging the docket orders dated 18.07.2018 made in I.A.No.290 and 291 of 2018 in I.A. Nos. 529 and 531 of 2017 in O.S.Nos.89 & 90 of 2013 respectively by the Court below, by which the court below extended the time limit for compliance of the earlier order 23.04.2018 for the payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- in both the applications.

2. The Court below, while passing the order dated 23.04.2018, in I.A.No.529 and 531 of 2017, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 48 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree passed in O.S.Nos.89 & 90 of 2013, stated that the time limit for the payment of cost to the revision petitioner was extended till 04.06.2018, on failure to pay the cost of Rs.2,500/- to the revision petitioner herein, the application would be dismissed automatically on 06.06.2018. But she has not paid the costs to the revision petitioner herein, within the time limit.

3. The learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that the court below became functus officio to extend the time, while so, the Court below has no authority to pass the order extending the time. In such case, the revision petitioner has no other remedy against the said docket but to file a Civil Revision Petition before this Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of this Court in reported in 2001 (3) Law weekly 254, 2003 (3) MLJ 770 and 2005 (3) MLJ 331 and also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Bholi (Dead) by LR's vs. Lachhman Singh & others. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below should not have extended the time by virtue of the impugned order as the said court become functus officio to pass any order for extension of time beyond 06.06.2018. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed was without any application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the applications were filed under Section 148 of CPC, for extension of time. The court below has power to extend the time, in case, if the order has been passed with the condition on payment of cost within the time limit. Hence, the application filed under Section 148 of CPC was heard on merits and decided by the court below. In the result, the application was allowed and the time limit was also extended by the court below. Further, he submitted that the court has not become functus officio to extend the time for payment of costs and in this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gowri Ammal vs. Murugan & others reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 1278, and also reported Judgment of this Court in CDJ 2014 MHC 6722 in the case of Kumarasamy vs. Venkatesan, and contended that there is no illegalities in the order passed by the Court below and the same is not liable to be set aside. There is no merit in the present Civil Revision Petition and he prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. Upon perusing the records, an exparte order was passed on 03.04.2017 in O.S.Nos.89 & 90 of 2013. Immediately, after passing the exparte order, the respondent herein filed the a