Judgment S.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 7.1.1998 and 26.9.1998, passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 5.2.2000 passed by respondent No. 1. (2) The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 3 filed suit on 23.7.1989, for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. The defendant-petitioner did not appear in the case and the Court passed orders on 18.11.1997 to proceed ex-parte. The petitioner filed an application on 8.12.1997 to set aside the said order. This application was allowed on the condition that the petitioner pays the entire cost by 15.12.1997. The petitioner did not deposit the above sum by the date fixed. The case was, however, adjourned on 15.12.1997 as the presiding officer was on leave and 7.1.1998 was fixed for hearing of the matter. On 7.1.1998, the petitioner did not appear but his Counsel is alleged to have made a request for filing an application. The Court did not permit it and fixed 13.1.1998 for ex-parte judgment. The judgment, how ever, was not delivered on 13.1.1998. The petitioner moved an application on 19.1.1998 for extending the time for depositing the cost. The trial Court rejected the said application on 26.9.1998. The petitioner preferred a revision against the order. The revision has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 1.3.2000. I have heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel for the respondent. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court has power to extend time under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the amount has not been deposited within the time prescribed by the Court. Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the Court had passed the order on 8.12.1997 on the condition that the petitioner deposits the cost by 15.12.1997, but the amount was not paid. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that if the amount was not paid within the time granted by the Court, the application should be treated as rejected. It is not denied that the trial Court had allowed the application of the petitioner to set aside the order dated 18.11.1997 whereby it directed to proceed ex pane. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that if the amount was not paid within the time granted by the Court, the application should be treated as rejected. It is not denied that the trial Court had allowed the application of the petitioner to set aside the order dated 18.11.1997 whereby it directed to proceed ex pane. The petitioner, admittedly, did not make the deposit within the time granted by the Court. The Court had, however, power to extend the time. (4) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.9.1998 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and the order dated 1.3.2000 is hereby quashed, on the condition that petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 8,000/- with respondent No. 2 within 3 weeks from today. The amount, if deposited, shall be withdrawn by the respondent No. 3 as a cost. The suit was filed in the year 1989 but the petitioner has delayed the matter. In the circumstances, if the petitioner deposits the sum of Rs. 8,000/- as directed, the case shall be decided by the trial Court within three months. The trial Court shall not grant any adjournment. However, if for any compelling circumstances, the adjournment is to be granted, it will not be for more than three days. In case the petitioner does not deposit the sum, as directed above, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. Petition allowed.