IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.316 of 2008 1. Narendra Prasad Singh, S/O late Bangleshwar Pd. Singh. 2. Rakesh Bihari, son of Sri Narendra Prasad Singh. 3. Bullu Prasad, son of Sri Narendra Prasad Singh. 4. Guddu Prasad, son of Sri Narendra Prasad Singh. All are residents of Village+Post +P.S. Bind, District- Nalanda. ….Defendants….Petitioners. Versus 1. Shyam Sunder Prasad, S/O Bramahdeo Prasad. 2. Bramahdeo Prasad, S/O Late Gajo Mahto Both are residents of Village + Post- Barhog, P.S. Bind, District- Nalanda. …..Plaintiffs….Opposite Parties. ----------- 08. 20.10.2011 Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Samir Kumar Sinha for the opposite parties. The defendants are the petitioners in an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is directed against the order dated 30.1.2008, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st court, Biharsharif, Nalanda, in Title Suit No.70 of 2003, whereby he has, after disposal of the suit, extended the time granted to the plaintiffs for deposit of the balance consideration money, and also for execution of the sale-deed. It arises out of a suit for specific performance of contract. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiffs (opposite parties herein) have 2 instituted a suit for specific performance of contract which was decreed by judgment dated 22.2.2006, and the plaintiffs were directed to pay the balance consideration money amounting to Rs.74,704/- to defendant no.1 within a period of three months, and defendant no.1 was directed to execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the balance consideration amount. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for extension of time so granted by the learned trial court. The same has been allowed by the impugned order. 3. It appears to us that the learned trial court has reached the correct conclusion, but has applied incorrect provisions of law. Such an application could not have been allowed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It could have been done under section 114, read with Order XLVII, as well as section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 114, read with Order XLVII, deals with powers of review. Furthermore, section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to enlarge the time fixed by it for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Court. Section 148 applies to enlargement of time granted by the court itself, whereas section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with a 3 situation where the court is empowered to enlarge the period of limitation fixed by the statute. However, in view of the position that the learned trial court has passed an appropriate order this Court adopts the same to be an order of this Court deemed to have been passed under section 114, read with Order XLVII, with the aid of section 148, of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. This civil revision application is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/