K.N. Misra, J. - (1.)This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 21 -7 -84 passed by Sri Hari Singh, Civil Judge, Gonda by which application has been rejected which was moved by the Defendant applicant seeking extension of time for depositing costs awarded, vide order dated 7 -7 -84 while setting aside exporter decree dated 5 -3 -84.
(2.)Plaintiff opposite party Sardar Arjun Singh had filed a suit for specific performance of contract. This suit was decreed exparte on 5 -3 -84. An application was moved by defendant -applicant for setting aside the exparte decree on 4 -4 -84. This application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge Sri Hari Singh; vide order dated 7 -7 -84. The exparte decree was set aside on the condition that the Defendant -applicant should deposit a sum of Rs. 100/ - as costs and further a sum of Rs. 3000/ - as costs of the suit in the court's account within two weeks from the date of said order i.e. 7 -7 -84. The period of two weeks allowed by the said order was to expire on 21st July, 1984 but on that date an application was moved by the Defendant -applicant, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure 6 to the counter affidavit wherein a prayer was made for extension of time to make deposit of the amount in compliance of order dated 7 -7 -84 by which exparte decree was set aside on aforesaid conditions. This application purported to be one moved Under Sec. 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short ' the Code '. It was rejected by the Civil Judge, Gonda, vide order date 21 -7 -84 by a short order which reads as under :
Application did not comply with the order dated 7 -7 -84. Order dated 7 -7 -84 itself is very clear that this order will be of no avail and exparte decree will prevail in case it is Dot complied with. Hence application 9/D is not maintainable. Hence it is rejected.

Sd/ -Hari Singh.

27 -7 -1984

(3.)Defendant -applicant aggrieved by the above order preferred revision before the District Judge, Gonda, which was held to be not entertain able by the Court vide order dated 29 -9 -84. It appears that the Plaintiff opposite party had raised an objection to the effect that the revision was not maintainable in the court of the District Judge as the valuation of the suit was Rs. 25,000/ -. The revisionist was thus directed to file revision in this Court as it was found to be not maintainable in the court of the District Judge vide order dated 29 -9 -84. The Defendant -applicant thereupon presented this revision within limitation on 11 -12 -84 and notice was directed to be issued to the opposite parties to show cause why the revision application be not admitted. It was also indicated that the matter was likely to be disposed of finally on that date. This revision has thus been listed today for orders/ hearing.