JUDGEMENT : NEWASKAR, J. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : 2. Plaintiffs Bansilal and Radheshyam sons of Kishanlal filed a suit under O. 21, R. 63, Civil P. C., against defendants Jethmal s/o Chhotelal and plaintiffs father Kishanlal for a declaration that the properties attached by defendant Jethmal in execution of a decree obtained by him against Kishanlal belonged to them and were not liable to attachment. 3. This suit was dismissed for default by the trial Court on 21-4-1951. An application was thereupon submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs to restore the suit. This too was rejected. The plaintiffs filed an appeal. In this appeal an agreement was submitted in this Court by the parties on the basis of which this court set aside the order rejecting plaintiffs application for restoration and directed restoration of the suit on terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. 4. This order directing restoration was passed in the following terms : "In result we set aside the order of the trial Court rejecting the application of the plaintiffs for restoration on the condition that the plaintiffs shall by the 5th of every month, deposit a sum of Rs. 125/- till the decision of the case, in the Court of first instance. Should the plaintiffs fail to deposit this amount in the trial Court, as directed above, then their application for restoration of the suit shall stand dismissed and the defendant will be at liberty to continue the execution proceedings from the stage at which they have been left at the moment. The plaintiffs should again begin depositing the amount of Rs. 125/- per month in the Court from 5-1-1955. The plaintiffs failed to deposit the instalment due on 5-1-1955. On that date deposit was effective on 6-1-1955. Instalments of subsequent months upto September 1955 were sent through post but did not reach the trial Court on due dates, 5. On these facts the trial Court took the view that on the terms of the remand order the application for restoration stood dismissed and that the defendant was entitled to continue the execution proceedings as there was admitted default in paying the instalment of 5-1-1955. 6. The suit was accordingly held to have stood dismissed. 7. Against this decision the present appeal is filed. 8. 6. The suit was accordingly held to have stood dismissed. 7. Against this decision the present appeal is filed. 8. It is clear from the terms of the remand order which was based on the agreement of parties that the petition for restoration and consequently the suit should stand dismissed if the plaintiffs failed to deposit Rs. 125/- P.M. on 5-1-1955 and thereafter every month. There was admitted default in depositing the agreed instalment on or before 5-1-1955. The deposit took place on 6-1-1955. The application for restoration and therefore the suit stood dismissed by the very force of the order of remand. The trial Court became functus officio as also this Court and there was no question of extension of time under S. 148, Civil P. C. 9. The question has been considered by this Court in Damodar v. Pannalals case, Second Appeal No. 81 of 1948 (MB) (A) where Division Bench of this Court took the view that the dismissal takes place automatically without any further order of the Court and that the Court becomes functus officio. In that case the order was similarly worded. 10. It was contended that this too strict and technical interpretation of the order of remand would cause undue hardship never contemplated by parties. But I do not feel I am justified in imparting consideration of hardship where the order is explicit and leaves no room for interpretation and particularly when the complaining party with open eyes agreed to those terms. 11. The result is that this appeal has no force. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. 12. SAMVATSAR, J. :- I agree.