1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8284 OF 2009 1. Pramod s/o. Panditrao Patki, Age 47 yrs., Occu. Service, R/o. Parli-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. 2. Sow. Pratibha w/o. Prakash Yogi, Age 53 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Pawdewadi Naka, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. Tuljaram s/o. Kasturchand Rathod, Age 73 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o. Itwara Chowk Bazar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 2. Jairaj s/o. Kasturchand Rathod 3. Ramdas s/o. Pralhad Sakkarwar (R. 2 & 3 are deleted as per order of the Court dated 9.8.2010) ....Respondent. Shri. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. M.V. Ghatge, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 9th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 9.9.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Nanded in connection with Misc. RJE No. 4/2003. The application was filed by the present petitioners for permission to deposit cost of Rs. 500/- in terms of order dated 17.4.2006 2 passed in Misc. RJE No. 4/2003. The same has been dismissed. 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 8th of December 2009 for final disposal of the matter. In order to find out the bona fides of the petitioners, an order was passed, directing the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- before the Appellate Court in order to meet the cost of contesting respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners inform that such cost has been deposited in the Appellate Court within the time, as was prescribed. 3. In response to the notice of this Court, Shri. M.V. Ghatge appears for respondent No. 1, who is contesting respondent. Shri. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to delete the names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The permission is granted. The amendment be carried out forthwith. The learned counsels appearing for the parties agree that the matter can be finally disposed of at the stage of admission in view of order dated 8th of December 2009 passed by this Court. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally by consent of parties. 4. The respondent No. 1 was the original plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 254/2000 and the petitioners were the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 in the said Regular Civil Suit. It was a suit for declaration of ownership, recovery of possession and for perpetual injunction in 3 respect of agricultural land Gat No. 89 (Old Survey No. 118), admeasuring 84 R. situated at village Dhanegaon, Taluka and District Nanded. The said Civil Suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 6.7.2002. The petitioners preferred an appeal along with Misc. RJE No. 4/2003 for condonation of delay. The said application was allowed by the Appellate Court by its order dated 17.4.2006 with cost of Rs. 500/-, to be deposited by the petitioners within the period of eight days. 5. It seems that the petitioners did not deposit the cost within stipulated period. However, on 25.3.2009 an application was moved before the Appellate Court in Misc. RJE No. 4/2003 for grant of permission to deposit the cost of Rs. 500/-. The said application has been rejected by the Appellate Court, on the ground that no sufficient and satisfactory reasons are given. This is the order which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which is reproduced below :- "148. Enlargement of time.- Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Court, 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." 4 He submits that the application, which has been rejected by the impugned order, can at the most be treated as an application under Section 151 of CPC. He submits that under Section 148, the enlargement of period cannot be for more than 30 days in total and if the petitioners are granted enlargement of period to deposit the cost, then it would frustrate the provisions of Section 148. He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (2) Mh.L.J. 1 in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. C. Parameshwara. 7. It is not in dispute that in the present case an order was passed by the Appellate Court on 17.4.2006, condoning the delay caused in filing an appeal, subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 500/- within a period of eight days. It has not been deposited within stipulated period. Bare perusal of Section 148 shows that what it prohibits, is enlargement of period not extending 30 days in total for doing any act prescribed or allowed by the Code. In the present case, eight days time was fixed by the Appellate Court to pay the amount. Though the time has expired long back, it is for the first time, an application for enlargement of time, was filed on 25.3.2009. In view of this, the provisions of Section 148 in no manner prohibit extension of time, in the facts of this case. So also the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is of no avail. 8. After going through the contents of the application filed by the petitioners for enlargement of time, in my view, sufficient cause was 5 made out and the Appellate Court ought to have, therefore, allowed the application by enlarging time to deposit the cost of Rs. 500/-. In rejecting such application, the Trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularities and hence order can not be sustained. 9. In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order dated 9.9.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Nanded in relation to Misc. RJE No. 4/2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are permitted to deposit the cost of Rs. 500/- before the Appellate Court within a period of one week from 30th August 2010. Upon deposit of such amount, the Appellate Court shall proceed with the appeal. The Appellate Court shall permit the respondent No. 1, who is contesting respondent, to withdraw the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, deposited by the petitioners before the Appellate Court as per the order of this Court dated 8th of December 2009. No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp8284.09