IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 577 of 2004 --------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/01/2004 IN IA.NO.2073/2003 IN OS.86/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR ) REVN. PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.KRISHNAKUTTY, ULAKAPARAMBIL VEETTIL, ANGADICKAL MURI, CHENGANNOOR. 2. A.S.RAGHAVAN, KATTUVATTAYIL, -DO- MURI. 3. RAJAGOPAL, KUTTIYIL VEETTIL, -DO- MURI. 4. BALAN, ULAKAMPARAMBIL, -DO- MURI. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SAMBAVA MAHASABHA BRANCH NO.73, ANGADICKAL, CHENGANNOOR. 2. -DO- .REP. BY ITS TALUK UNION PRESIDENT, K.K.PRABHAKARAN. 3. -DO- REP. BY ITS TALUK UNION SECRETARY, M.N.DAMODHARAN. R2 AND R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008 ALONG WITH C.R.P NOS. 622 OF 2004 AND 585 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 577, 585 AND 622 OF 2004 ................................................................................... Dated this the 10th March, 2008 O R D E R The defendants in O.S.Nos. 86 of 1998 and 51 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur are the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos. 577 of 2004 and 622 of 2004. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 227 of 2000 is the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 585 of 2004. All the three suits were ordered to be tried jointly. On 08.11.2002, O.S.Nos. 51 of 1998 and 86 of 1998 were decreed ex parte and O.S.No. 227 of 2000 was dismissed for default. Applications were filed by the defendants under Rule 13 Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case where decree was passed ex parte and an application was filed under Rule 9 Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff whose suit was dismissed for default. The trial court dismissed all those applications for default. Later, on the applications filed for review of those orders, the court below allowed review petitions on payment of costs of Rs. 1000/- each. It would appear that cost of Rs.1000/- was deposited in total instead of Rs.1,000/- each in three cases. Later, application were filed for extension of time invoking Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below dismissed the applications holding that Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to get extension of time for a period of more than 30 days, as Section 148 specifically provides for a period “not exceeding 30 days in total”. 2. The order passed by the court below cannot be sustained in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India (AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 3353) and R.N. JADI & BROTHERS AND OTHERS vs. C.R.P. No. 577, 585 AND 622 OF 2004 2 SUBHASHCHANDRA ( [2007] 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 420) . In Salem Advocate Bar Association's case , the Supreme Court held as follows: “45. The amendment made in Section 148 affects the power of the Court to enlarge time that may have been fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Code. The amendment provides that the period shall not exceed 30 days in total. Before amendment, there was no such restriction of time. Whether the Court has no inherent power to extend the time beyond 30 days is the question. We have no doubt that the upper limit fixed in Section 148 cannot take away the inherent power of the Court to pass orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court. The rigid operation of the section would lead to absurdity. Section 151 has, therefore, to be allowed to fully operate. Extension beyond maximum of 30 days, thus, can be permitted if the act could not be performed within 30 days for the reasons beyond the control of the party. We are not dealing with a case where time for doing an act has been prescribed under the provisions of the Limitation Act which cannot be extended either under Section 148 or Section 151. We are dealing with a case where the time is fixed or granted by the Court for performance of an act prescribed or allowed by the court. xx xx xx xx xx 47. There can be many cases where non-grant of extension beyond 30 days would amount to failure of justice. The object of the Code is not to promote failure of justice. Section 148, therefore, deserves to be read down to mean that where sufficient cause exists or events are beyond the control of a party, the Court would have inherent power to extend time beyond 30 days.” 3. In R.N. Jadi's case, the Supreme Court considered the question whether a written statement filed beyond 90 days could be taken on record. It was held thus: “10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The C.R.P. No. 577, 585 AND 622 OF 2004 3 language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent , but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.” The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The orders impugned are set aside. The court below shall dispose of the applications under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure afresh in the light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk