PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
(2.) AN exparte decree was passed against the petitioner way back on 21-7-1994 in suit no. 258 of 1989. An application to set aside the exparte decree filed by the petitioner was allowed conditionally by the order dated 17-1-1997 requiring the petitioner to deposit 1/4th of the decretal amount as security within a period of one month. Still aggrieved, the petitioner instead of furnishing security, preferred to file F.A.F.O. No. 128 of 1997 which was dismissed by this Court with the observation that if the deposit as directed by the court below is made within a period of one week, the court below shall accept it as compliance of its order dated 17-1-1997. Still not satisfied by the said order, writ petition no. 6505 of 1997 was preferred which too was dismissed on 4-3-1997. It is not understandable, when the appeal was dismissed by this Court, how the writ petition was preferred before this Court. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not deposit the amount within the time as was granted by the trial court or by this Court in appeal. Ultimately, the trial court by order dated 17-3-1997 consigned the record to the record room for non compliance of the order passed by this Court. Against the said order, Misc. Appeal no. 46 of 1997 was filed which came up for consideration before the District Judge, Budaun, who by order dated 19-9-1997 dismissed the same with costs. Undaunted by successive failure, the petitioner filed an application purporting to be under Section 148 CPC for extension of time for making the deposit. The said application having been rejected by the two courts below, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has power to extend time under Section 148 CPC and the view of the court below that it has become functus officio is unwarranted in law.;