JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12-1983 passed by the lower appellate Court rejecting the Petitioner's application to extend the time for payment of costs as directed by it earlier the Petitioner has moved this Court in revision. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus: Title Suit No. 4 of 1976 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed for default under Order 9, Rule 8, CPC on 10-8-1981. The application under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC for restoration of the suit registered as M. J. C. No. 12 of 1981, was rejected by the trial Court on 13-4-1982. On appeal by the Petitioner the Subordinate Judge, Chatrapur by his order dated 5-12-1983 in Misc. Appeal No. 26/4 of 1982.83 allowed the appeal and accepted the application for restoration of the suit subject to payment of Rs. 100/- towards cost by 12-12-1983 and further ordered that in case of default the appeal shall stand dismissed. Twelvth of December having been declared as a holiday the order was to be complied with by 13-12-1983. The Petitioner failed to pay the cost as directed by the lower appellate Court. On 22-12-1983 when the case was posted for further orders, an application u/s 148, CPC was filed by the Petitioner praying to extend the time for payment of the cost. It was stated therein that the counsel for the Respondent had refused to accept the amount on the ground of expiry of time granted by the Court. By the impugned order the Court rejected the application taking the view that on the face of the conditional order passed in the appeal he could not' extend the time for payment of cost. 3. The order passed by the Court below is clearly unsustainable in view of series of decisions of this Court and also of the Supreme Court taking the view that in such circumstances the Court has ample jurisdiction to extend the time on an application u/s 148, CPC filed before expiry of the period granted by the Court and u/s 151, CPC even after expiry of the period. Some of those decisions may be noticed here. In the case of Mahanth Ram Das Vs. Some of those decisions may be noticed here. In the case of Mahanth Ram Das Vs. Ganga Das Hidayatullah, J (as he then was) considering the powers vested in the Court under Sections 148, 149 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, took the view that the Court was not justified in rejecting the application solely on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to extend the time in view of the conditional order passed. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Sri Kasi Biswanath Dev Vs. Paramananda Routrai and Others while considering the scope of Section 35-B of the Code, and in the case of Ram Nath Misra v. Ganeswar Misra and Ors. 60 (1985) C.L.T. 196. 4. In view of the legal Section discussed above, the lower appellate Court clearly erred in rejecting the application for extension of time on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to do so. It is pertinent to mention here that the Court has not rejected the application on any other ground except want of jurisdiction. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case particularly since 12-12-83 was declared as a holiday of the Court, the Court below should have extended the time and permitted the Petitioner to pay the cost to the opposite patty within the extended period. 5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order rejecting the application of the Petitioner for extension of time to pay the cost as directed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. The application is accepted and the Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- towards cost to the opposite party or to deposit the same in the trial Court within a month from today, failing which the Civil Revision shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. In case the amount is deposited as directed, Title Suit No. 4 of 1976 shall stand restored to file and it shall be disposed of by the Court below within a period of four months from the date of its restoration. Final Result : Allowed