ORDER K.M. Natarajan, J. 1. Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 187 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore (respondents 2 to 4 in I.A. N0. 1019 of 1987) have preferred this revision. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly as follows: The respondents-plaintiffs, preferred a suit in Q.S. No. 187 of 1980 originally for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners and three others from causing any obstruction or interference or prejudice to the plaintiffs in dividing at their discretion the suit properties into portions as sites for construction of buildings and demarcating the boundaries of such sites with survey stones and laying out roads in the suit properties etc and from causing in any other manner any injury to any of the rights of the plaintiffs under the suit contract and also for restraining the defendants from selling or alienating the suit properties in any manner to any person other than the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1982 of 1980 for amending the plaint which includes the prayer for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale. The said application was allowed. Thereafter, the court found that since the relief of specific performance was valued for Rs. 2,15,710, the said Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the plaint for re-presentation to proper court granting two months time. The said order was passed on 28.11.1980. Thereafter the respondents-plaintiffs did not take delivery of the returned plaint till 27.4.1987. They filed an application I.A. N0. 1019 of 1987 under Section 148 and 151 Code of Civil Procedure praying for issue of necessary orders for effecting delivery of the amended plaint in O.S. No. 187 of 1980 ordered by the Court to be returned to the plaintiffs and to grant such other relief just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. District Munsif, Coimbatore, without ordering any notice to the other side, passed an order on the basis of the sworn affidavit only filed in support of the application, as follows: "Plaint may be returned to the advocate as requested. One week time for re-presentation given". The above order was passed on 28.4.1987, i.e. the very next day of the application. District Munsif, Coimbatore, without ordering any notice to the other side, passed an order on the basis of the sworn affidavit only filed in support of the application, as follows: "Plaint may be returned to the advocate as requested. One week time for re-presentation given". The above order was passed on 28.4.1987, i.e. the very next day of the application. The reason alleged in the affidavit is that though the plaint was ordered to be returned to them for re-presentation on 28.11.1980, the same was not yet delivered to them. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision is filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners, Mr. K. Doraisami, submitted the said order dated 28.4.1987 was passed without notice to the revision-petitioners, namely, defendants. It was also submitted that the said order, when there is no prayer for extension of time after a lapse of seven years, is without jurisdiction, that the Court has become functus officio and that it amounts to review of the earlier order. Further, there was not even a petition to condone the delay in not taking back the returned plaint which was ordered to be presented in proper Court within two months. The learned Counsel also submitted that the respondents had abandoned the suit, that as the time for execution of the sale deed under the agreement is long back, the suit agreement itself came to an end, that the revision-petitioners sold the properties to third parties and that the third-parties (purchasers) are in possession. They came to know of the passing of the said order only after publication in newspaper dated 10.7.1987, that on the basis of the said order, the respondents herein moved the vacation court in O.S. No. 526 of 1986 and obtained an order of injunction, that the said order is liable to be set aside and that the order passed by the Court below on 28.4.1987 granting a week's time for presenting the plaint in proper court is without jurisdiction and illegal. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no question of civil court becoming functus officio. In the instant case, except the fact that notice was not given, there was no infirmity in law. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no question of civil court becoming functus officio. In the instant case, except the fact that notice was not given, there was no infirmity in law. Further, even if such a notice was given under Order 7, Rule 10-A, C.P.C., the remedy is only to file an appeal under Order 63, Rule 1(a), C.P.C. and not to file a revision, that there is no error of jurisdiction and that no Interference is called for in this revision. The Court has got power to extend the time even after the expiry of the period. 4. The only question that now arises for consideration in this revision is, whether the order passed by the Court below on 28.4.1987 granting a week's time to the respondents for presenting the plaint before proper court is legal and proper. It is not in dispute that the original order returning the plaint for presentation before proper court on the ground of want of pecuniary jurisdiction was on 28.11.1980, and at that time two months time was granted for representation before proper Court. As per the amended plaint, Court fee of Rs. 16,178-25 has to be paid instead of Rs. 800 already affixed. The plaintiffs did not choose to take back the plaint. They kept quiet till 27.4.1987. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. No. 1019 of 1987, there is absolutely nothing to show as to why the respondents did not take back the plaint as ordered by Court and re-present it in proper court within two months. They kept quiet for nearly seven years. It is not disputed that in the meantime, the revision-petitioners sold certain items of properties to third parties and third-parties are now in possession of certain items. Even according to the counter of the respondents, out of 4 acres 7 cents, 2 acres 52 cents were sold to third parties and they are in possession. Originally, the respondents-plaintiffs have not filed the suit for specific performance but, they have filed the suit only for permanent injunction and subsequently it was amended and the relief of specific performance was included. But, they did not choose to take back the plaint and pay the proper court fee and present it before proper court. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners, Mr. But, they did not choose to take back the plaint and pay the proper court fee and present it before proper court. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners, Mr. K. Doraisami, submitted that an order was passed in the amendment application after hearing both parties, and thereafter the plaint was amended. It was stated that after appearance of the revision-petitioners, they have filed no counter and the application was allowed. When the application I.A. No. 1019 of 1987 was filed, the Court ought to have issued notice and passed an order only after hearing the revision-petitioners as the order virtually affects the rights of the revision-petitioners (Defendants). Without doing so, the Court below, which has no jurisdiction after ordering return of the plaint, has passed the impugned order granting a week's time for presentation in proper Court after a lapse of seven years and the said order is without jurisdiction and is not legal in support of the said contention, he invited the attention of this Court to the decision reported in Ramachandrayya v. Venkataratnam (1925)22 L.W. 582 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 133(2) where Odgers, J. held as follows: In this case, a certain suit O.S. No. 704 of 1923 was filed in the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Ellore for the recovery of certain properties. It was alleged that the suit had been under-valued and the District Munsif held a preliminary enquiry into the valuation of the items of property involved and came to the conclusion that the market value was over Rs. 5,000. The plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff who was given 7 days' time for presentation to the proper court. This order was made on the 31st March, 1924. On the 1st April, 1924, the plaintiff presented a petition asking for 15 days' time for filing the additional stamp for the plaint. No notice of this application was given to the defendants and on the 2nd April, the principal District Munsif purported to review his decision of the 31st March and granted the prayer in the petition of the 1st April, giving the petitioner 7 days' time in which to pay the additional court fee. I am of opinion that, as regards C.R.P. No. 500 of 1924, the learned District Munsif was clearly not entitled to review his order at least without notice to the other side. I am of opinion that, as regards C.R.P. No. 500 of 1924, the learned District Munsif was clearly not entitled to review his order at least without notice to the other side. Therefore, C.R.P. No. 500 must be allowed with costs. Applying the ratio laid down in the said decision to the facts of this case, it is seen that the application in question was filed after a lapse of seven years, and he had asked for return of the plaint. On 28.11.1980, two months time was granted for re-presentation of the plaint in proper court. Even then, without notice to the revision-petitioners (defendants) the Court below has passed the impugned order. As observed by the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners, when the plaint has already been returned giving two months' time for presenting it in proper court, it is not open to the said court to pass again another order after a lapse of 7 years by granting one more week for presenting the plaint in proper court, when once the plaint was returned holding that the said Court has no jurisdiction. I find much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner that the said court is not entitled to entertain any further petition, and even if it does so, it must be disposed of only after giving notice to the other side; otherwise it is not a valid order. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that even if notice was not given, in view of Order 7, Rule 10-A C.P.C., only an appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1(a) C.P.C. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners submitted that it is not an order passed under Order 7, Rule 10-A C.P.C. but only under Sections 148 and 151, C.P.C. virtually extending the time already granted for presentation of the plaint before proper court and as such, against the said order, only a revision is maintainable and not appeal. If the original order is challenged, certainly an appeal alone is maintainable. If the original order is challenged, certainly an appeal alone is maintainable. But, the impugned order was passed by exercising the powers under Sections 148 and 151, C.P.C. As such, I find much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners that revision is certainly maintainable as against the impugned order which was passed under Sections 148 and 151, C.P.C. and not against the order passed under Order 7, Rule 10-A, C.P.C. The proposition of law that the Court has got power to extend time even after the expiry of the period stipulated in any proceedings by the Court is not disputed. But the only question is whether in the instant case any such proceedings are pending and whether such an order could be passed after a lapse of 7 years after the plaint was returned, without notice to the other side, and without a petition for extending the time. The learned Counsel for the respondent, relying on the decision reported in The General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi and Anr. v. T. Shadrak (1978) T.L.N.J. 332 submitted that no notice is necessary in a case of re-presentation. That decision is not helpful to the case on hand. This is not a case of re-presentation to the same court where it was returned. In the instant case, the re-presentation contemplated is to another court which is having jurisdiction within the time prescribed by Court which ordered the return. In such a case, certainly notice is necessary. Lastly, it was submitted, by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in the instant case the suit was subsequently filed in the Vacation Court and it was taken on file. Injunction was also granted. The revision-petitioners also entered appearance. As such, any illegality or irregularity would not affect the subsequent proceedings. I do not find any merit. When once it is held that the very order authorising the respondents to present the plaint to the other court is found illegal and improper, certainly further proceedings will be of no use. They were fact that the revision-petitioners appeared when they were issued summons would not mean that they cannot question the impugned order in this case. When once it is held that the very order authorising the respondents to present the plaint to the other court is found illegal and improper, certainly further proceedings will be of no use. They were fact that the revision-petitioners appeared when they were issued summons would not mean that they cannot question the impugned order in this case. Further, it is to be noted that this is a case where the suit has been filed on the basis of an agreement of sale and the time stipulated under the agreement expires even in April 1979. The respondents did not originally file the suit for specific performance in 1980, but only a suit for permanent injunction. Subsequently they amended the plaint by filing an application and they did not pursue the same after the amendment petition was ordered on 18.11.1980 and the plaint was ordered to be returned on 28.11.1980. As rightly observed by the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners, prices have gone up by number of times. There is also change of circumstance viz., third-parties have purchased the properties and they are in possession. In view of the above circumstances the order of the Lower Court caused great prejudice to the revision-petitioners and the respondents-plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 7. For all these reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 1019 of 1987 in O.S. No. 187 of 1980 is set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.