Judgment : Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petition is heard finally as the notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents by an order dated 22.6.2009 and the same is duly served on the respondents. 3. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-against the respondent. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment and decree before the District Judge, Akola. There was a delay of about 45 days in filing of appeal. The petitioner filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The application was allowed by the First Appellate Court by an order dated 15.11.2008 subject to payment of costs of Rs.250/- payable to the respondent no.1 within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner was suffering from various ailments and was retired government servant, he was not able to deposit the amount of costs within a period of 10 days. The petitioner, therefore, moved an application for permission to deposit the costs of Rs.250/- before the court on 12.12.2008. The petitioner prayed that the costs of Rs.250/- may be accepted by the court. The trial court, however, by the order dated 12.12.2008 dismissed the application on the ground that the time to deposit the costs had already elapsed on 25.11.2008 and therefore, it was not possible to grant further time. The order dated 12.12.2008 is impugned in the instant writ petition. 4. Shri C.A. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court committed serious error in rejecting the application for acceptance of the costs of Rs.250/- on the ground that the time to deposit the costs had elapsed on 25.11.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the provisions of section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure to canvass that the court in its discretion can enlarge the period of 30 days, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was ready to deposit the costs of Rs.250/- on 12.12.2008 and had requested the court to accept the costs by enlarging the time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was ready to deposit the costs of Rs.250/- on 12.12.2008 and had requested the court to accept the costs by enlarging the time. Since this was done within a period of 30 days fro the date of the initial order dated 15.11.2008, according to the petitioner, the court ought to have permitted the petitioner to deposit the costs on 12.12.2008. 5. None appears on behalf of the respondent no.1 though duly served. 6. Shri Anand Deshpande, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 supported the order passed by the District Judge Akola dated 12.12.2008. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent no.2 and have also perused the application for extension of time along with the impugned order dated 12.12.2008. On perusal of the same, it appears that the appellate court committed a serious error in rejecting the application for enlarging the time to deposit the costs solely on the ground that the time to deposit the costs have lapsed on 25.11.2008. The learned District Judge Akola failed to consider the provision of section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure which empowers the court to enlarge the time to deposit the costs for a maximum period of 30 days in total even though the period originally fixed or granted for depositing the costs may have expired. In the instant case, the order was passed on 15.11.2008 and the costs were to be deposited till 25.11.2008. The total period of 30 days was to expire on 15.12.2008. In such circumstances, the appellate court committed an error in rejecting the application dated 12.12.2008, though the petitioner was ready to immediately deposit the costs and had prayed to the court for acceptance of the costs, by enlarging the time to deposit the same. Since the application was filed within a period of 30 days, the appellate court ought to have exercised the discretion in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner was an old and ailing person and was a retired government servant. The appellate court could not have rejected the application solely on the ground that the time to deposit the costs had elapsed on 25.11.2008, without considering the other aspects of the matter. The order dated 12.12.2008 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 8. The appellate court could not have rejected the application solely on the ground that the time to deposit the costs had elapsed on 25.11.2008, without considering the other aspects of the matter. The order dated 12.12.2008 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.12.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to deposit the costs in the first appellate court within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment. In case the petitioner fails to pay the costs within a period of 30 days, from the date of this judgment the order dated 12.12.2008 would operate. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.