JUDGMENT : 1. - The defendant petitioner, Daulat Ram, has filed this revision petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code against the order of the learned Additional Munsiff and judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City (East), Jaipur dated 6/10/1976. 2. Mr. Khejriwal filed caveat and has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff non-petitioner. The learned Munsiff had ordered on May 24, 1975, that the areas of rent be deposited up to June 30, 1976. It is contended that due to illness and other family circumstances the defendant-petitioner could not deposit the rent before 30th June, 1976. He, however deposited the rent on 20th July, 1976 and also filed an application on July 23, 1976 stating that the arrears of rent has been deposited on July 20, 1976 and that the period for depositing the rent may be extended and the delay, if any, may be condoned. The learned Munsiff by the impugned order dated October 6, 1976, rejected the application and struck of the defence on the ground that the arrears of rent were not deposited within the stipulated time. 3. The learned counsel for the defendant -petitioner has contended that the learned Munsiff did not examine the acts on the basis of which the benefit of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act could be extended. He further contended that the learned Munsiff had discretion to extend the period for depositing the arrears of rent upto three months and that the period of three months had not yet expired. It was also contended that due to the death of the uncle of the defendant and due to his personal illness he could not deposit the rent within the time, stipulated. It was, therefore, contended that there were just and sufficient grounds for condoning the delay and extending the time. It was also contended that the learned Munsiff did not exercise his discretion judiciously and thus committed an error in procedure which calls for an interference on the revisional side. Reliance was placed on Palghat Municipality v. National Motor Works, AIR 1967 Madras 31, State of W.B. v. Hawrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749 , Ram Lal v. Rewa Coal-fields Ltd, AIR 1962 SC 361 , and In re Subramania Achari. 4. On behalf of the plaintiff -non-petitioner, it was contended that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to the facts of the present case. 4. On behalf of the plaintiff -non-petitioner, it was contended that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to the facts of the present case. The time to deposit the arrears of rent had already expired. It was also contended that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to such types of cases. It applies only to an application for appeal as enumerated in Section 5. Reliance was placed on Hira Lal v. Haribux, 1975 C.J. 328, Delhi C & G Mills Co. v. Hem Chand, AIR 1972 Delhi 275, and Shri Chand v. Madan Lal. It was also contended that against the order of the learned Munsiff' striking out the defence of the appellant an appeal lay under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and as such, the revision petition is incompetent. 5. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the defendant -applicant does not deal with the point involved. The ratio decidendi laid down in the rulings have no applicability to the acts of the present case. 6. The law on this point has been well settled in Hiralal v. Haribux and I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court. The Court has no power to extend time and condone delay where the rent was not deposited as required by law. In the present case, even the application was submitted after the time for depositing the arrears of rent had expired. 7. For the reasons stated above, there is no force in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******