IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.02.2021

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

C.R.P (PD).Nos.2403 & 2404 of 2018

and

Cmp.Nos.14841 & 14842 of 2018

Sri Venkateshwara Financer,

Rep.by its Owner,

V.Varadararajan, S/o.Late Viswanathan

... Petitioner/Plaintiff

(in both CRP)

Versus

Sargunammal

... Respondent/Defendant

(in both CRP)

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.

Prayer in 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.

For Petitioner : Mr.Udaya Kumar S.

(in both CRP)

For Respondent : Mr.N.Suresh

(in both CRP)

COMMON ORDER

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.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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