THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5103 OF 2010 DATED: 18-01-2011 Between: N.Pratap. ..... PETITIONER And Juddu Chinna Sayanna. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16-06-2010, in I.A.No.273 of 2005 in I.A.No.188 of 2003 in O.S.No.67 of 2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, Adilabad District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein- plaintiff for extension of time, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Respondent-defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. On 25-03-2003, the suit was dismissed for default. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the default dismissal order and for restoration of the suit, along with a petition in I.A.No.188 of 2003 for condonation of delay of 155 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Respondent- defendant filed a counter opposing the said application. After hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.188 of 2003 by order, dated 27-10-2005, and condoned the delay of 155 days, subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall pay costs of Rs.100/-. No time limit was prescribed in the said order for payment of costs. According to the plaintiff, when he offered costs of Rs.200/-, the other side refused to receive the same. He, therefore, filed a memo, dated 14-11-2005, bringing the said fact to the notice of the Court and also sought permission to deposit the costs into the Court. The said memo was numbered as I.A.No.273 of 2005. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.273 of 2005 on the ground of delay and laches. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. It is to be noted that I.A.No.188 of 2003 was allowed and the delay of 155 days was condoned by the trial Court on merits observing that the plaintiff did not file application for restoration of the suit in time as he had no knowledge of the procedure and there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It was further observed that if the delay is not condoned and the petition is dismissed on technicalities, it will cause prejudice to the plaintiff. In the said order, no time limit was however prescribed for payment of the costs. The said order was passed on 27-10-2005. On 14-11-2005, memo was filed by the plaintiff into the Court stating that the other side has refused to receive the costs. It cannot be said that there was any unreasonable delay in payment of the costs or filing of the memo. On 28-11-2005, plaintiff filed petition under Section 151 CPC, which was numbered as I.A.No.188 of 2005 i.e., just one month after the date of the order in I.A.No.273 of 2005, seeking permission to deposit the costs into the Court. The refusal by the other side to receive the costs was intimated to the Court on 14-11- 2005 itself. Within two weeks thereafter, plaintiff sought permission of the Court to deposit the costs into the Court. Again, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay in filing the said application. The trial Court, however, refused to grant permission on the ground that there was delay in payment of costs and further that the request for permission is not supported by any affidavit. When the Court felt that the petition was not filed in proper manner, duly supported by an affidavit, the trial Court ought to have returned the memo, but on the other hand the trial Court chose to receive the same and register the same as I.A.No.273 of 2005 and also passed orders thereon. Of course, plaintiff ought to have filed a regular application, duly supported by an affidavit, seeking permission of the Court to deposit the costs into the Court, but having received the memo and registered the same as I.A.No.273 of 2005, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed on the ground that it was not in proper form. Further, having allowed the petition filed to condone the delay in payment of costs of Rs.100/-, the trial Court ought not to have refused permission to deposit the costs into Court, especially when the refusal of the other side to receive the costs is brought to the notice of the Court on 14-11-2005 itself and the application/memo seeking permission to deposit was filed within two weeks thereafter. As there is no unreasonable delay either in offering the costs to the other side or in seeking permission of the Court to deposit the same into the Court, it is considered that refusal to grant permission is unwarranted. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Petitioner-plaintiff is directed to deposit the costs of Rs.100/- into the Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th January, 2011. Tsy