Judgement ORDER:- The facts leading to these three revision petitions are as follows: The petitioners Must. Dagri alias Dagreswari Baroni, Birendra Boro and Rajendra Boro filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1967 for declaration of their title and delivery of khas possession of the suit land. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were minors represented by their mother plaintiff petitioner No. 1. The plaintiffs-petitioners claimed their title to the suit land by right of inheritance from their ancestors. The suit was filed against 18 principal defendants and 5 pro forma defendants. Summonses were served on the defendants, but the defendants-petitioners Nos. 14 and 14 (a), sons of deceased defendant No.14, only contested the suit by filing a written statement and the trial court ordered the suit to proceed ex parte against the other defendants. Title Suit No. 32 of 1967 was filed on 27-1-1967 and the same was registered on 1-2- 1967. The suit was ultimately fixed for hearing on 9-7-1969. On the date fixed, that is on 9-7-1969, the defendants were found absent and no steps were taken on their behalf. The trial Court examined plaintiff No. 1 and decreed the suit ex parte. Thereafter it is found that within the period of limitation three separate applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed by three sets of defendants for setting aside the ex parte decree. The application filed by Maheswar Barman, Praneswar Barman and Bhabendra Nath Barman, sons of deceased defendant No. 6 Dadhiram Barma, and Lankeswar Barma, son of deceased defendant No. 16 Ratia Barma, was registered as Misc. Case No. 50 of 1969, the application filed by defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 was registered as Misc. Case No. 51 of 1969 and the application filed by Kabi Chandra Barman and Debendra Nath Barman, sons of deceased defendant No. 14, was registered as Misc. Case No. 52 of 1969. All these three miscellaneous cases were fixed for hearing on 12-1-1970. The learned Munsiff took up all the three miscellaneous cases together and by a common order dated 12-1-1970 allowed the applications and set aside the ex parte decree on condition of payment of cost of Rs. 12/- in each case by 29-1-1970 failing which the applications would stand rejected. 2. The order dated 12-1-1970 is quoted below: "Both parties are present. 12/- in each case by 29-1-1970 failing which the applications would stand rejected. 2. The order dated 12-1-1970 is quoted below: "Both parties are present. The learned Advocate for the opposite parties submits that if appropriate costs are paid he has no objection to the allowing of the petitions. Hence the petitions for setting aside of the ex parte decree are allowed and the defendants are allowed to contest the suit. Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969 are accordingly disposed of. Petitioners of each of the miscellaneous cases shall pay Rs. 12/- to the opposite parties as costs. The suit is next fixed on 29-1-1970 for steps. If the costs are not deposited on the next date, the applications will stand dismissed." 3. It appears that the defendants-petitioners in Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969 did not deposit the costs on 29-1-70 and the learned trial Court passed the following order on 29-1-1970: "The petitioners did not deposit costs. Their advocate filed hazri. The three petitions for setting aside the ex parte decree are treated as rejected." Thereafter on 19-2-1970 the decree was prepared. 4. The petitioners in Misc. Case No. 51 of 1969 filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 6-2-1970 praying that the order dated 29-1-1970 passed in Misc. Case No. 51 of 1969 may be set aside and after allowing time to deposit Rs. 12/- the original suit may be restored. This application was registered as Misc. Case (J) No. 8 of 1970. On 20-2-70 the petitioners in Misc. Case No. 62 of 1969 and Misc. Case No. 50 of 1969 filed two separate applications under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code with the same prayer and these two applications were registered as Misc. Case (J) No. 14 of 1970 and Misc. Case (J) No. 15 of 1970, respectively. 5. The learned Munsiff by his order dated 24-11-1971 in Misc. Case (J) Nos. 8, 14 and 15 of 1970, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, set aside the order dated 29-1-1970 rejecting the previous three miscellaneous cases and restored the original suit on payment of the cost awarded in the previous miscellaneous cases, directing the petitioners to pay the said costs on 20-12-71. This order dated 24-11-1971 has been impugned in these revision petitions. 6. This order dated 24-11-1971 has been impugned in these revision petitions. 6. Going through the orders of the learned Munsiff dated 12-1-1970 and 24-11-1971 it is found that by order dated 24-11-1971 the learned Munsiff only extended the time for payment of the costs that were awarded by him on 12-1-1970 in Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969. 7. Mr. N. Chakravarty, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the learned Munsiff by his order dated 12-1-1970 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969 set aside the ex parte decree and restored the original suit on payment of cost of Rs. 12/- in each case and it was directed that the costs must be paid on 29-1-1970, failing which the miscellaneous cases would be treated as dismissed. As it happened, the costs were not paid by the petitioners in Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969 and accordingly the order dated 29-1-1970 was passed, which has already been quoted. 8. So, the point that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the learned Munsiff had jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the costs as ordered on 12-1-1970. The Courts mandate was that the costs must be paid on 29-1-1970, failing which the miscellaneous cases for setting aside the ex parte decree would stand rejected. So when the costs were not paid on that date, the effect of the order dated 12-1-1970 was that the Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969 stood dismissed. The petitioners in Misc. Case (J) Nos. 8, 14 and 15 of 1970 filed petitions for setting aside the order dated 29-1-1970 and to restore the original suit allowing time to pay the costs as ordered on 12-1-1970. It is also to be noted that the applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed on 6-2-1970 and 20-2-1970 whereas the deposit of the costs were to be made on 20-12-1971 as directed by the learned Munsiff. So, in effect, by his order dated 24-11-1971 the learned Munsiff extended the time for depositing costs as ordered on 12-1-1970. 9. So, in effect, by his order dated 24-11-1971 the learned Munsiff extended the time for depositing costs as ordered on 12-1-1970. 9. In Dinesh Chandra Nath v. Surendra Chandra Nath, Assam LR (1971) Assam and Naga 124 : (AIR 1971 Assam and Naga 156) this Court observed as follows: "Two points that arise for consideration in this case are: (1) Whether the learned Munsiff had jurisdiction to extend time for payment of the cost in view of his orders dated 14-12-1967 and 21-12-1967, and (2) whether the application under Order 47 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code for review of such an order lay. The learned Munsiff disposed of the revival petition under Order 9 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code by allowing the petition and restoring the suit on condition that the plaintiff-petitioners must pay the cost of Rs. 15/- by 20-12-1967. In the order he clearly stated that if the plaintiff petitioners failed to pay the cost within the fixed time, the revival petition would stand dismissed. It is settled law that if a suit is revived on condition of payment of cost within a fixed time and if the order further says that if the cost is not paid within the fixed time, the application for revival of the suit shall stand dismissed, then in such case, on default of the petitioner to make payment of cost within the fixed time, the order of dismissal of the petition takes effect automatically. In the instant case, on the default of the petitioners the order of dismissal took effect automatically, moreover the learned Munsiff passed another order on 21-12-1967 dismissing the petition for revival. In the circumstances the Court became functus officio thereafter and there was no scope for extension of the time for payment of the cost as contemplated under Section 148, Civil Procedure Code." 10. In Dinesh Chandra Naths case (AIR 1971 Assam 156) (supra) this Court relied on the decisions in Peda Nasar Saheb v. Perecherla Nabi Saheb (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 780), S.A. Balakrishna Ayyar v. Parvathammal (AIR 1928 Mad 154), and Tarapada Sarkar v. Nepal Gazi ( AIR 1965 Cal 354 ). The Court held, relying on the above decisions and the reasonings given therein, that the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to extend time for payment of cost. 11. The Court held, relying on the above decisions and the reasonings given therein, that the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to extend time for payment of cost. 11. The facts of this case are almost identical only with the difference that in the instant case the application is under Order 9 Rule 13 and in Dinesh Chandra Naths case (AIR 1971 Assam 156) the application was under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. In AIR 1957 Andh Pra 780 (supra), Chief Justice Subba Rao, as he then was, observed as follows: "If an application for setting aside the ex parte decree is dismissed, it cannot be suggested, and indeed it is not suggested that after the dismissal, any further relief can be asked for in that application. If in such an application a conditional order is made and if on non-compliance with that condition the application is dismissed by the Court, it cannot also be argued that further orders can be made in that application. If it is the legal position, we do not see how when an application automatically stands dismissed on non-compliance with a particular condition, a party will be in a better position than in the other two cases. Under Section 148, Civil Procedure Code, where any period is fixed or granted by the Court, for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court, may, in its discretion from time to time enlarge such period originally fixed or granted may have expired. The period prescribed under the section can be extended only during the currency of the previous order. Once an order has become defunct, no question of extending the time made under that order can arise." The other decisions referred to in the Assam case (Dinesh Chandra Naths case) (AIR 1971 Assam 156) (supra), are also to the above effect. 13. The period prescribed under the section can be extended only during the currency of the previous order. Once an order has become defunct, no question of extending the time made under that order can arise." The other decisions referred to in the Assam case (Dinesh Chandra Naths case) (AIR 1971 Assam 156) (supra), are also to the above effect. 13. Mr, J.N. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, submits that an application under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable even if an application under O.9, R.13, Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed for default and for this proposition he has relied on a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1954 Assam 1 (FB) (Madanlall Agarwalla v. Tripura Modern Bank Ltd.), wherein the point that was decided was whether an application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code will lie after an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code was dismissed for default, and it has been held that such an application may lie and in appropriate cases the Court may even grant relief. But that case does not help the opposite parties in the present case. The applications filed on 6-2-1970 and 20-2-1970, as stated hereinabove, were for relief by extending the time for depositing the costs as ordered on 12-1-1970 in Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969. So, in effect all the three applications were filed for extension of time for depositing the costs as ordered on 12-1-1970. When the Court ordered on 12-1-1970 that the miscellaneous cases were allowed and the ex parte decree was set aside, it categorically stated that the costs must be paid on 29-1-1970, failing which the miscellaneous case would stand dismissed. If the order is couched in such words, then no further order regarding the dismissal of the cases for not complying with the mandatory direction of the Court regarding the payment of costs need be passed. Whatever that may be, in the instant case there was again an order on 29-1-1970 that as the petitioners in those cases had failed to deposit the costs as directed, the Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969 stood dismissed. Thereafter the Court was not in seisin of those cases. Whatever that may be, in the instant case there was again an order on 29-1-1970 that as the petitioners in those cases had failed to deposit the costs as directed, the Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969 stood dismissed. Thereafter the Court was not in seisin of those cases. What was sought to be done by the applications under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code filed on 6-2-1970 and 20-2-1970 was to obtain an extension of time for depositing the costs as ordered on 12-1-1970. As has been held by this Court in Dinesh Chandra Naths case (AIR 1971 Assam 156) (supra) and in the other cases referred to in that judgment, I am clearly of the opinion that the learned Munsiff in a round about way extended the time for deposit of the costs as ordered on 12-1-1970 till 20-12-1971 and by allowing time he acted without jurisdiction. Mr. J.N. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, further submits that by allowing the petitioners in Misc. Case (J) Nos. 8, 14 and 15 of 1970 to deposit costs on 20-12-1971, the learned Munsiff did substantial justice and therefore he had jurisdiction to pass that order under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. But it must be remembered that justice is not one sided. Justice must be for both the parties in a litigation. In the instant case, the widow as the plaintiff filed the suit some time in February 1967 and the suit was decreed ex parte on 9-7-1969. Thereafter order was passed in the Misc. cases No. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969 under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code on 12-1-1970 with a clear direction of the Court that the costs awarded must be paid by 29-1-1970. But the petitioners in those miscellaneous cases did not deposit the costs. They have no doubt come with some explanation for not depositing the costs on 29-1-1970. Whatever that may be, the causes shown cannot be sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is found that some of the petitioners in Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969 were served with summonses and the Court ordered the suit to proceed ex parte against them and ultimately the suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter they filed the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is found that some of the petitioners in Misc. Case Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1969 were served with summonses and the Court ordered the suit to proceed ex parte against them and ultimately the suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter they filed the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree. In the circumstances, I Find that the learned Munsiff by his order dated 24-11-1971 extending the time for deposit of the costs as directed by him in his order dated 12-1-1970 till 20-12-1971, committed an error of jurisdiction and the impugned order dated 24-11-1971 is accordingly set aside. 14. All the three revision petitions are allowed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.