Upon attaining majority, a person under disability is entitled to a fresh period of limitation for applying for a final decree, and the Court should consider the disability as a sufficient cause for extension of time.

1. The mortgagor has filed this revision petition against the order dated 26-8-1991 passed by the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Palwal, dismissing his application dated 28-8-1989 for extension of time to deposit the redemption money in terms of the decree dated 29-10-1981.

2. In this case, the mortgaged property is a shop. The mortgagee (respondent herein) was in possession of the shop as a tenant @ Rs. 25/- per month prior to the creation of the mortgage in question in the year 1972 by Khiloni Ram, the predecessor of the petitioner, for an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. There was a specific condition in the registered mortgage deed that in case of redemption of the mortgage, the original position will revive and the mortgagee will remain in possession of the shop as a tenant.

3. After the death of Khiloni Ram, the petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of redemption on 27-11-1980. The petitioner filed the said suit as minor through his guardian. The said suit was partly decreed on 29-10-1981 by holding that the petitioner is entitled to redeem the mortgage on payment of the mortgaged amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the mortgagee till 1-12-1981. However, it was made clear that the mortgagor was not entitled to the actual physical possession of the shop in question and on redemption of the mortgage, he was to get only the symbolic possession and the mortgagee will continue in possession of the shop as a tenant under the mortgagor on the terms of the tenancy agreed between them originally.

4. Against the above-said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal through his natural guardian, which was dismissed on 20-5-1982. Before the Appellate Court, a prayer was made by the petitioner for extension of time to deposit the mortgaged amount. The said request was rejected by the Appellate Court on the ground that under O. 34, R. 7, C. P. C., the trial Court can extend the time and a liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply for extension of time before the trial Court.

5. The guardian of the petitioner, who was conducting the proceedings on behalf of the minor and pursuing the claim of the petitioner, did not apply for extension of time before the trial Court for depositing the mortgaged amount. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained majority on 15-8-1987 as his date of birth was 16-8-1969. After attaining majority, the petitioner filed an application for extension of time on 28-8-1989 alleging therein that his natural guardian, who was prosecuting the aforesaid proceedings, did not take care of the interest of the minor after decision of the appeal by not applying for extension of time from the trial Court for depositing the mortgaged amount as per the liberty granted by the Appellate Court. He further prayed that the limitation for redemption of the mortgage in question was 30 years and the same did not expire, therefore, the time could be extended. He also contended that the mortgagee will not suffer because even after redemption of the mortgage, he will remain in actual possession of the shop in question as a tenant.

6. The trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application on the ground that the petitioner could not show sufficient reasons for extension of time for making application after seven years of the dismissal of the appeal. The only ground on which the extension of time was sought that the petitioner filed the application after attaining majority, was not accepted for the reason that the petitioner filed the suit as well as the appeal being minor, therefore, his guardian could have also filed the application for extension of time and could have deposited the mortgaged amount. Against the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed.

7. Counsel for the petitioner made three-fold submission. Firstly that under Rule 7(1)(c)(ii) of Order 34, C. P. C., the trial Court is competent to extend the time for depositing the mortgaged amount in terms of the preliminary decree on showing good cause. Such time can be