1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8068 OF 2009 Ramchandra Dadu Magar .. Petitioner versus Baba Damu Lawate & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.A.Rajeshirke for the petitioner. Mr.H.G.Wakshe for the respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th March 2010. P.C.: . Notice for final disposal was issued on the earlier date. On application at made by the petitioner who is the 3rd defendant, the trial Court permitted written statement to be filed by the petitioner subject to payment of costs of Rs.1700/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.1000/- was to go to the 1st and 2nd respondents who are the plaintiffs and remaining amount was to be paid to the legal aid. The order dated 14th July 2009 passed below application at Exhibit 33 records that if the amount was not deposited before the next date, the order will stand vacated. On 10th August 2009, an application was made by the petitioner stating that due to inadvertence amount of costs was not paid on 24th July 2009 which was the earlier date fixed in the suit. Therefore, permission was sought to deposit the costs. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10th August 2009. The learned trial Judge observed that as the amount of costs was not 2 deposited on the next date fixed i.e 24th July 2009, the order passed below application at Exhibit 33 automatically stands vacated. The learned trial Judge while rejecting the application observed that his Court has become functus-officio. 2. The opposition of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents is that the petitioner was negligent and now entire proceeding cannot be allowed to be re-opened at the instance of the petitioner. He submitted that as a result of the self-operative order dated 14th July 2009, the order taking the written statement on record is not operating and therefore, no interference is called for. 3. I have considered the submissions. According to the order passed below application at Exhibit 33, the amount of costs ought to have been paid or deposited on 24th July 2009. On 10th August 2009, an application was made by the petitioner at Exhibit 37 seeking permission to deposit the costs amount. On that day, in view of section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, power was certainly vesting in the Court to extend the time to deposit the costs as the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit the same. The time for payment of costs ended on 24th July 2009. The time could have been extended in any case for a further period of 30 days i.e till 23rd August 2009. The trial Court has declined to exercise the power on an erroneous ground that the Court had become functus officio. The Court was not powerless to extend the time to deposit the costs. 3 4. The petitioner has deposited a total amount of Rs.10,000/- in this Court. The petition will have to be allowed. Out of the said amount, 1st and 2nd respondents will be permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.7,500/-. The remaining amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application at Exhibit 37 is allowed. In view of deposit of sum of Rs. 10,000/- in this Court, order passed below application at Exhibit 33 stands complied with. Therefore, the trial Court will take the written statement of the petitioner on record. (b) The 1st and 2nd respondents are permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.7,500/- out of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The balance amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be paid over to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. (c) Writ petition is allowed in above terms. (d) Hearing of the suit is expedited. (A.S.OKA,J)