Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Even today there is no representation for the respondent. 2. This revision has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1552 of 2006 in M.C.O.P.No.363 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram which has been filed to restore I.A.No.1944 of 2005 which was dismissed for default on 7. 2006. I.A.No.1944 of 2005 in M.C.O.P.No.363 of 2003 was filed to restore M.C.O.P.No.363 of 2003 which was dismissed for default on 3. 2005. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Judge on 6. 2006 on condition, the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.200/-towards cost to the other side on or before 30.6.2006, failing which, the application shall stand automatically dismissed and the learned trial Judge has directed the matter to be called on 7. 2006. On 7. 2006, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had endorsed that he had not received the cost. So on the same day, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application for nonpayment of cost. To set aside the said order passed in I.A.No.1944 of 2005 in M.C.O.P.No.363 of 2003, the revision petitioner/petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.363 of 2003 had filed I.A.No.1552 of 2005 which was also dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the Court has become functus officio which necessitated the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.363 of 2003 to prefer this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on a ratio decidenti in Jothi Anand-v-Amirtha Raj (2006)4MLJ929) delivered by this Court, basing on a dictum of the Honourable Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil Nadu-v-Union of India(AIR 2005)SC 3353: 2005(6) SCC 344 ), would contend that the Court will not become functus officio ,even after the dismissal of the application for failure to comply with the conditional order and has got power to extend the time for complying with the condition. The exact observation in the said Judgment relevant for the purpose of this case runs as follows: "The decision rendered by the Supreme Court on this point, which is a ratio decidenti, is a law on the land, bringing on all Courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The exact observation in the said Judgment relevant for the purpose of this case runs as follows: "The decision rendered by the Supreme Court on this point, which is a ratio decidenti, is a law on the land, bringing on all Courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Where the Supreme Court has stated that the law laid down in a particular case is the applicable law, it cannot be contended that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court has not considered the point, regarding functus officio. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts in India, but it is the mandate of the Constitution, as provided under Article 141, that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be respected by all the Courts and the counsel as well as the parties, within the territory of India...... As per Section 148 read with the Court has ample powers to grant extension of time to comply with any conditional order, though the time originally granted had expired and the application itself was dismissed." 4. In fine, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.1552 of 2006 in M.C.O.P.No.363 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Villupuram is set aside on condition, the petitioner deposits the cost of Rs.200/-before the trial Court to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.363 of 2003 within a week failing which the revision shall deem to have been dismissed. On such deposit, the respondent is entitled to withdraw the same without any reference to this Court and the learned trial Judge is directed to restore M.C.O.P.No.363 of 2003 to his file and dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.