THANDAVACHARI Vs. MUTHUVEL PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case in which the respondent herein has kept quiet for a continuous period of six months after a valid order had been obtained by the petitioner herein on 20th March, 1980, for possession of the suit property which was delivered in execution and the delivery was also recorded and the E. P. was closed. As a matter of fact, I. A. No. 441 of 1980, was filed to extend the time for payment of the amount ordered in I. A. No. 1059 of 1979 which petition was under section 5 of the Limitation Act. While disposing of I. A. No. 1059 of 1979 on 21st April, 1979 the lower Court had granted some time within which the amount had to be paid. The said amount specified in that order was not paid. But, in the meanwhile, that is, on 20th March, 1980, possession of the suit property was delivered in execution and delivery was recorded and the E. P. was closed. Under the circumstances, when I. A. No. 441 of 1980 had been filed to extend the time for payment of the costs ordered in I. A. No. 1059 of 1979, how the said prayer could be granted and is it not that the said order should be revised under the provisions of section 115 Civil Procedure Code? THIS is the rhetorical question that emanates from the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. THIS Court feels that this question has got substance. The contention that is surrounding the said rhetorical question had got valid support in P K. Sukumaran v. Sulaiman Khan1, and Krishnan Dutt v. Mohinder Nath2, is the submission made by Mr. T.K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner herein.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent herein refers to the provision under section 148, Civil Procedure Code, which deals with enlargement of time. He relies on the decision in Periaswamy Asari v. President, lluppur Panchayat Board.

(3.) ALL these aspects have been completely lost sight of by the lower Court and therefore, the order extending time for payment of Rs. 75 imposed as a condition in I. A. No. 1059 of 1979 is certainly irregular and illegal and becomes revisable. Hence the civil revision petition is allowed with costs.