1 CRA No.409/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.409 of 2011 Mr.Balasaheb Khasherao Mule and ors ... Applicants versus Mrs.Janamibai Pandurang Shinde and Anr ... Respondents ... Mr.R.V. Bansode for the applicants. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 30th June 2011 P.C. 1. The present petitioner is a judgment debtor. In RCS No.93 of 1996, a decree for specific performance was passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division in favour of the respondent. The decree was passed on 6 February 2002 for specific performance subject to the respondents depositing Rs.9,000/- in the court within one month from the date of the order. The amount was not deposited within one months but was deposited on 30 March 2002 and the deposit was accepted by the court. Thereafter, the respondent decree holder field the execution proceedings. Petitioner applied for dismissal of execution proceedings on the ground that money was not deposited within 30 days of the decree dated 6 February 2002. That application was rejected. Aggrieved petitioner has filed this revision application. 2 CRA No.409/11 2. Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to enlarge time fixed for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Code from time to time for a period not exceeding 30 days in the aggregate. The respondent has deposited the amount within the said period of 30 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no specific order for extension of the order was passed by the court and therefore, the darkhast was not maintainable. Submission cannot be accepted. The office of the court would not accept the amount after the expiry of period prescribed by the order contrary to the order unless there is an extension. Under section 114 of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption that all official acts have been done properly raising a presumption that an order of extension of time must have been passed which may not be traceable in the records. Even otherwise, the very fact that the court accepted the deposit of amount amounts to an implied extension of time. There is no merit in the revision application which is hereby rejected. (D.G.KARNIK, J)