IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.183 of 2008 ---- Abhay Kumar Choubey son of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Choubey, Resident of Village- Basudeopur, P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnia. ….. Applicant-petitioner. Versus Jayant Dubey son of Jotindra Nath Dubey, Resident of Nabada Bhawanipur, P.S.- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur. At present residing at Mohalla- Bhikhanpur, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Bhagalpur. ….. Opposite Party- Opposite Party. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha with Mr. Chy. Prem Kumar Thakur, Advocates. For the opposite party : None. ---- 02. 25.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by applicant- petitioner challenging order dated 27.11.2007 by which the learned Additional District Judge-I, Purnea rejected his application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extension of time granted for depositing the court fees in Miscellaneous Petition No.03 of 2007 which had arisen out of L.A. Case No.25 of 1999. 3. It transpires that the aforesaid L.A. case was filed for issuance of letter of administration in favour of the petitioner and after several years and repeated orders when the court fee was not deposited by the petitioner the said case was dismissed by the learned court below in the year 2006-07. 4. For restoration of the aforesaid L.A. case the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petition No.03 of 2007 which was allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 17.08.2007 with a condition that the petitioner should deposit the aforesaid - 2 - amount of court fees amounting to Rs.30,000.00 along with cost of Rs.1,000.00 within a week. 5. It transpires that the said condition was not fulfilled within the said period and much more than one month thereafter on 28.09.2007 the petitioner filed an application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extension of time granted by the learned court below vide order dated 17.08.2007. It transpires that even the application for extension of time was filed much belatedly and in the meantime order dated 17.08.2007 had already taken its effect, hence the learned court below was quite justified that since the said order dated 17.08.2007 was a conditional order and its non- compliance had automatically taken effect on 25.08.2007, there was no occasion for extension of the said time on the application for extension of time filed on 28.09.2007. 6. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 7. However, this order will not come in the way if an application is filed by the petitioner in the court below for restoration of the miscellaneous case which, if filed, would be decided on its own merit. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)