(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of Mr. R.Y. Mahajan, Additional District Judge, Amraoti, in civil Appeal No. 96-A of 1944, decided on 25th June 1945. The matter arises in execution proceedings based upon an order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 13, Relief of Indebtedness Act. The Debt Relief Court had prepared a scheme of repayment and instalments were granted. This was on 13th February 1940. The instalments fell due on 15th February of each succeeding year. The Deputy Commissioner was moved on the allegation that two instalments were defaulted. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 10th August 1944 that the order of the Debt Relief Court had ceased to have effect and the balance remaining due was recoverable as a decree. Execution proceedings were started and during the course of the proceedings the judgment-debtor filed another order subsequently passed by the Deputy Commissioner rescinding 'his previous order on which the execution was foased. It was contended that the Deputy Com-missioner could not rescind or review the order but was functus officio the moment the first order was passed.
(2.) THE executing Court held that the Deputy Commissioner had the power to review his own order and in suitable cases even to revoke it. It further held that in the present case, the order on which execution was based having disappeared, the execution proceeding could not go on. On appeal this decision was upheld.
(3.) BUT in reviewing his order the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to enlarge the time for payment of the two instalments. The penalty under Section 13(3) is incurred on the failure to pay the two instalments on the due date and the Deputy Commissioner on an application has to pass an order under Section 13(3) if two instalments are in arrears at least on the date of the filing of the application: See Vithal v. Laxman A.I.R. 1946 Nag. 45, Krishna v. Udhaorao and Misc. second appeal No. Mendabai v. Kanchhedi Lal Misc. S.A. No. 173 of 1944.