IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1911 of 2009 SUMANGAL RAI Versus ASHOK NATH SHUKLA ----------- 06/ 17.02.2010 I.A. No. 393 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 18.01.2010 for extension of one month time granted by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2009 for payment of cost of Rs.500.00 by the petitioner to Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the sole opposite party. It transpires that time granted by the said order expired on 15.12.2009 but the said order was not complied. Furthermore, when this case was listed on 12.01.2010, the Court adjourned the case for one week for the said purpose, but the said order was not complied. On 21.02.2010 the case was again adjourned for the said purpose but again the said order was not complied. However, when the said I.A. No. 393 of 2001 was taken up on 01.02.2010 by a Bench of this High Court, the matter was transferred and has been listed before this Court today, but the said order has still not been complied. It is quite apparent that the said interlocutory application has been filed more than one month after the expiry of the time granted by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2009 and although several opportunities were given to the petitioner he did not comply the said order and the said order has taken its effect as qfar back as on 16.12.2009. In the said circumstances, this Court does not see any 2 reason to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the said interlocutory application is dismissed. As a result, I.A. No. 7075 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing of the civil revision stands dismissed for default. Since, admittedly, this civil revision is barred by the law of limitation and the interlocutory application for condoning the delay has been rejected, the instant civil revision stands dismissed due to bar of limitation. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )