THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6149 of 2009 ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 18.11.2009 in I.A. No.1355 of 2009 in O.S. No.22 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, and respondents herein are defendants 1 to 3 in the, in the suit. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the plaint. 4. The first defendant filed I.A. No.863 of 2009 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination, and the said application was allowed on 21.7.2009 on payment of costs of Rs.200/- to P.W.1 with a condition precedent to cross-examine P.W.1 on 6.8.2009. But, the first defendant did not comply with the conditional order. Thereafter, the first defendant filed the present I.A. No.1355 of 2009, under Section 148 CPC, for enlargement of time granted in I.A. No.863 of 2009. That petition was allowed by the trial Court on payment of further costs of Rs.500/- along with the costs of Rs.200/- imposed earlier and on condition of cross-examination of P.W.1 on 1.12.2009. Challenging the same, the present revision is preferred by the plaintiff. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 148 CPC does not apply to this case and extension of time can be granted only within the period of 30 days from the date of the original order, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Section 148 CPC reads thus: “Enlargement of time: Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this 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.” The Section is only directory in nature. The Court has discretionary power to enlarge the time from time to time. As seen from the above provision, it makes clear that enlarging the time not exceeding 30 days in total is discretionary power conferred on the Court. Therefore, in the first instance, the time was granted for 16 days. That was expired on 6.8.2009 and not extended on the date of expiry. Now, the present application is filed on 30.09.2009. By that time, the time had already expired. By the impugned order, another 14 days’ time was granted for complying with the order. An inadvertent mistake appears to have committed by the advocate, but not by the party, in not complying with the order intentionally or wantonly, as the first defendant stated that he was not aware of the order passed by the trial Court on 21.7.2009. In view of the fact that substantial rights of the parties are being affected and also that imposition of costs in pursuance of the order dated 21.7.2009 was not brought to the notice of the first defendant, some communication gap was crept in. So, an opportunity can be given to him. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in passing the order and it needs no interference by this Court. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 23.11.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6149 of 2009 23.11.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6149 of 2009 23.11.2010 Between: P.Suseelamma …Petitioner And Chinigepalli Sreenivasa Rao & others …Respondents