ORDER :- A suit for pre-emption brought by R.K. Babusana Singh against Th. Haithumba Singh was decreed by the Additional Munsiff, Manipur on 27-10-51. The plaintiff was to deposit or to pay to the defendant Rs. 65/- sale money by 16-11-51. Appeal against the above decree was dismissed by me District Judge on 5-5-52. The decree-holder Babusana Singh applied for execution of the above decree in the Court of the Munsiff which was Appellant uccessor court as by that time the Court of the Additional Munsiff was terminated. As the pre-emption money was not deposited the decree-holder applied to that court for withdrawal of his application for execution. The learned-Munsiff thereupon dismissed the execution suit on 4-4-53 on the ground that it did not lay as the D. H. did not deposit or pay the money within the prescribed period. The D. H. after that filed a Misc. Application in me court of the District Judge which was registered as Misc. Case No. 8 of 1953 and resulted, in extension of the time for deposit of the above amount till 10-8-53. The order was passed on 9-7-53. The present petition is for revising the above order by setting it aside on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and that the D. H. ought to have applied for extension of time to the successor Court i.e., viz., the Munsiffs Court. 2. The Misc. application to the Court of the District Judge does not disclose under which law it was made, nor the order of the learned District Judge says under which provision of law the time was extended. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the above order was passed by the learned District Judge under S. 148, C.P.C., although the order itself does not disclose it. He has not been able to satisfy me that such art order could be passed in a pre-emption decree. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 31 C. 497 and 17 I.C. 912 as given on page 512 of Dr. Katju and Das, C.P.C. in which it has been held that "where time has been fixed and no provision, is made for extension and an appeal is filed and no stay is obtained, payment after disposal of appeal and expiry of time fixed in decree would not be a valid deposit". Katju and Das, C.P.C. in which it has been held that "where time has been fixed and no provision, is made for extension and an appeal is filed and no stay is obtained, payment after disposal of appeal and expiry of time fixed in decree would not be a valid deposit". Further reliance has been placed on the D. B. Ruling of the Punjab. Chief Court, - Gurdit Singh v. Hukam Singh, 1903 Pun Re No. 53 at pp. 205 (206) (A) (as cited in - V.V. Chitaleys C.P.C. page 2142 of 1953 Edition) where it has been held that "in the plaintiffs default in paying the purchase money within the time allowed, the suit should be dismissed, though the decree does not contain a specific provision to that effect". 4. I am quite in agreement with the above findings. I hold, therefore, that extension of time as ordered by the learned District Judge after about 2 years of the termination of period prescribed by the trial court on a Misc. Application of the D.H was without jurisdiction. Under the circumstances of the case this petition is allowed with cost to parties. Revision allowed.