HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2932 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is preferred against the order of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, in I.A.No.875 of 2007 in O.S.No.620 of 2004, dated 21.04.2008. I.A.No.875 of 2007 is an application filed by the first respondent-second defendant, against both the petitioner-plaintiff and the first defendant, under Sections 148 and 151 CPC, seeking enlargement of time for payment of costs of Rs.500/-,as prescribed in I.A. No.238 of 2006, from 09.10.2006 till the date of the order. O.S.No.620 of 2004 is a partition suit. The plaintiff and the defendants are all related to each other. An ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 02.02.2005, consequent upon which the first respondent-second defendant filed I.A.No.238 of 2006 to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree. The said I.A. was allowed, and the delay was condoned, on payment of costs of Rs.500/- on or before 09.10.2006 with a default clause that, if the petitioner failed to pay the costs, the petition would stand dismissed. The first respondent-second defendant preferred CRP. No.2152 of 2007 contending that he suffered from ill-health, domestic problems and lack of funds resulting in his inability to pay the costs within time. This Court, by its order dated 24.08.2007, while noting the second defendant’s contention that ill- health was the cause for not depositing costs in time, observed that, in such a case, the remedy available to him was to move the lower Court under Section 148 of the CPC for enlargement of time; and without availing the said remedy he could not question the discretionary conditional order passed by the Court below. The revision petition was dismissed granting liberty to the first respondent-second defendant to move the lower Court to avail the remedies available to him. The first respondent-second defendant, thereafter, filed an application under Section 148 CPC on 12.10.2007 and the Court below, by its order in I.A. No.875 of 2007 in O.S.No.620 of 2004, dated 21.04.2008, enlarged the time for payment of costs of Rs.500/- upto 08.05.2008 with a default clause that, if the second defendant failed to pay costs as awarded in I.A.No.238 of 2006 to the plaintiff or if he failed to deposit the said amount into the Court, the petition would stand dismissed. It is not in dispute that the first respondent-second defendant deposited costs of Rs.500/- on 08.05.2008 which is the time granted by the Court below. Sri T. Sharath, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, would submit that the thirty day limitation period prescribed, under Section 148 CPC would commence from the date on which CRP. No.2152 of 2007 was dismissed by this Court and, since the application under Section 148 CPC was filed by the first respondent-second defendant six weeks after the revision petition was dismissed, and is beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 148 CPC, the Court below could not have entertained such an application or enlarge the time for payment of costs of Rs.500/- . Section 148 CPC deals with enlargement of time and, thereunder, where any period is fixed or granted by the Court, for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period not exceeding thirty days in total, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. It is not in dispute that the time limit originally granted by the Court had expired aggrieved by which the revision petition was filed by the first respondent-second defendant. The discretion to enlarge time, under Section 148 CPC, is that of the Court hearing the suit and, as such, the time limit of 30 days is the time which the Court, hearing the suit, can grant in total towards enlargement of time. The period of 30 days is the time limit prescribed for the Court below to enlarge time and, since the Court below by its order dated 21.04.2008 had enlarged time only till 08.05.2008, which is around 17 days and is much below the 30 day period stipulated under Section 148 CPC, the order of the Court below cannot be faulted on that score. The time limit of 30 days, prescribed under Section 148 CPC, does not commence from the date of dismissal of the revision petition by this Court but from the date on which the Court below passed the order on an application filed seeking enlargement of time. The application filed by the first respondent-second defendant is less than two months from the date of dismissal of the revision petition and is not so inordinate as to necessitate the order of the Court below being set aside by this Court, in exercise of its powers of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order of the Court below neither suffers from any patent illegality nor can the order be said to have resulted in manifest injustice to the petitioner-plaintiff. The consequence, of enlargement of time for payment of costs and of the first respondent-second defendant complying with such an order, is only that the Court below would have to decide the application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree. The petitioner-plaintiff cannot be said to have suffered manifest injustice on that score. The Civil Revision Petition as filed is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:17-06-2010 usd