JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - The writ petition is directed against the order and judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, dated 10th September, 1982. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 17th July, 1981, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act before the District Judge, which was transferred to the 1st Addl. District Judge, Banda. The appeal was dismissed in default on 26th May, 1982. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for restoration of the appeal on the ground that as he was confined to bed upto 2-6-82, he could not come to the court on the date of hearing of the appeal. This application was supported by an affidavit. The learned Additional District Judge found the cause for restoration to be sufficient and accordingly allowed the same on 17th August, 1982 on the condition of payment of Rs. 75/- within a week of the order. The cost awarded was not paid to the State Government within the time stipulated by the order aforesaid. On 9-9-82 an application was filed by the petitioner for extension of time to deposit the cost on the ground that the petitioner had although given the amount awarded to the counsel but as the counsel forgot to pay it, the condition of restoration could not be complied with. This application was signed by the counsel who had been paid cost by the petitioner. This application for extension was rejected on 10-9-82. While rejecting the application, the learned Additional District Judge observed that as the costs had not been deposited within the time allowed, he did not think it proper to allow the application and to condone the delay for payment of the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel. The controversy about the power of the Court to extend the period where the initial period given for depositing it has expired has been a subject matter of decision of a Full Bench in Gobardhan v. Barsati, AIR 1972 Alld 246. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel. The controversy about the power of the Court to extend the period where the initial period given for depositing it has expired has been a subject matter of decision of a Full Bench in Gobardhan v. Barsati, AIR 1972 Alld 246. The Full Bench held that even in the cases where an order is made by the Court for doing a thing within a particular time and the order further provides that the suit or appeal shall stand dismissed if the thing is not done within the time fixed, the Court has jurisdiction, on sufficient cause being shown, to extend the same. The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by this case. So far as the matter for condonation of delay is concerned, it appears that the petitioner had paid the costs to his counsel but latter forgot to pay the same to the D.G.C. (Revenue). Counsel who appeared for the petitioner, had supported this. Taking these facts into account and also the circumstance that there was no counter on behalf of the State rebutting these facts' the ends of justice required the 1st Additional District Judge to extend the time. Accordingly, the time for payment of costs is extended upto 30th October, 1984. 4. For these reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 10-9-1982 is quashed and the time for depositing costs as directed by the order dated 17-8-1982 is extended upto 30th October, 1984. There shall be no order as to costs.