Judgment :- 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 21.01.2003 in I.A.No.25 of 2003 in I.A.No.485 of 2002 in O.S.No.15 of 2002 dated 21.01.2003 passed by the District Munsif Court, Sattankulam. 2. The trial Court while passing the order in I.A.No.25 of 2003 in I.A.No.485 of 2002 in O.S.No.15 of 2002 on 21.01.2003, has among other things observed that in I.A.No.485 of 2002 a conditional order has been passed and as such, allowing the I.A.No.25 of 2003 will not be in the interest of justice and resultantly, dismissed the I.A.No.25 of 2003 without costs. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.25 of 2003 in I.A.No.485 of 2002 in O.S.No.15 of 2002 dated 21.01.2003, is vitiated by the patent illegality and material irregularity besides, the same not being passed in accordance law. 4. Continuing further, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the I.A.No.25 of 2003 filed for an extension of time in regard to the deposit of costs amount without adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the ingredients of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as a matter of fact, an application seeking extension of time for payment of costs is per se maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure, but these aspects of the matter have not been adverted to by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. 6. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.25 of 2003 on 21.01.2003, is perfectly valid in law as the trial Court has categorically observed in its order that the earlier order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.485 of 2002 itself is a conditional one and as such, this Court may not interfere with the orders of the trial Court in I.A.No.25 of 2003 dated 21.01.2003 at this distant point of time sitting in revision. 7. 7. This Court has heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and noticed their contentions. 8. Admittedly, in I.A.No.485 of 2002 filed by the revision petitioners before the trial Court, a conditional order has been passed by the trial Court on 10.01.2003, in and by which, the revision petitioners have been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.250/- and extra one month time has been granted to the petitioners to pay the aforesaid amount. 9. However, the revision petitioners/petitioners have chosen to project I.A.No.25 of 2003 seeking extension of time for depositing of Rs.250/- as ordered by the trial Court earlier in I.A.No.485 of 2002 dated 10.01.2003. 10. At this stage, it is useful for this Court to refer to the affidavit filed by the Second Revision Petitioner in I.A.No.25 of 2003 before the trial Court, wherein it has been mentioned that their mother has not been keeping good health and she has been admitted as an inpatient for taking treatment and therefore, they may not be in a position to deposit the costs of Rs.250/- as ordered by the trial Court dated 21.01.2003 and therefore, prayed for one month extension of time to deposit the said sum of Rs.250/- into the Court. 11. It is to be noted that Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure speaks of “enlargement of time”. As per Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Court of law is empowered to extend the time determined by it, even after the lapse of the period originally determined. Of course, the said power is a discretionary one and a Court of law is necessarily supposed to consider the conduct of the litigant applying for extension. If a party prays for enlargement of time on the basis that for valid reasons, it is not fulfilled or performed the act which required to be performed within the time granted by a Court of law, it is for the concerned party to file an application as per Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the convince of the Court that the interest of justice requires extension of time whether prospectively or retrospectively as per Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure itself. As a matter of fact, it is not an obligatory to move certain application in all the cases. As a matter of fact, it is not an obligatory to move certain application in all the cases. 12. It is to be borne in mind that though Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers the discretionary power on a Court of law, yet the said power must be exercised in case of necessities which arise in a good case. 13. In the instant case, the petitioners have come out with a plea in I.A.No.25 of 2003 that their mother has not been keeping good health and she has been taking treatment as inpatient and therefore, they have not been in a position to remit a sum of Rs.250/-as a conditional costs ordered in I.A.No.485 of 2002 as per order dated 10.01.2003. However, the trial Court has simply observed that since in I.A.No.485 of 2002, a conditional order has been passed, I.A.No.25 of 2003 is not to be allowed in the interest of justice and accordingly, dismissed I.A.No.25 of 2003 on 21.01.2003. 14. On going through the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.25 of 2003 dated 21.01.2003, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Courts order in dismissing the I.A.No.25 of 2003 dated 21.01.2003 is bereft of any quantitative and qualitative reasons. An outline of process of reasoning is consequently absent in the order of trial Court in I.A.No.25 of 2003 dated 21.01.2003, when it dismissed the I.A.No.25 of 2003. Except the trial Court observing that since already a conditional order has been passed in I.A.No.485 of 2002, I.A.No.25 of 2003 is not to be allowed, it is not a reasonable order and in short, it is only a cryptic order and the trial Court has not taken into account the ingredients of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure which confers a discretionary power on a Court of law which has to be exercised by it in a careful and cautious way and an order cannot be passed in a capricious manner or cavelier fashion. 15. 15. As far as in the present case is concerned, I.A.No.485 of 2002 has been allowed with certain conditions by means of payment of costs of Rs.250/-to be paid by the Revision Petitioners on or before 21.01.2003 and further, on that day itself, the Revision petitioners will have to examine their witnesses on their behalf and if they violate any one of the aforesaid conditions then, the petition will stand dismissed automatically and also one month time is given to the petitioners to pay the costs of Rs.250/-. Even where restoration of a suit is allowed on payment of costs within a particular period, in default of which the application for restoration has been ordered to be dismissed and to be posted for final order, the time has been enlarged even after the expiry of the period as per the decision in Periasami Asari -Vs- Illuppur Panchayat Board reported in AIR 1973 Mad 250 . 16. A Court of law does not cease to have jurisdiction until it makes an order finally disposing of the proceedings before it. 17. Inasmuch as the trial Court has adopted an incorrect approach by observing that already I.A.No.485 of 2002 has been allowed conditionally and therefore, it has dismissed the I.A.No.25 of 2003 on a wrong premise of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even if the costs have not been paid in time by the party, it is to be pointed out that a Court of law has got a discretionary power to extend the time for payment of costs if valid reason is assigned before it. But, in the present case, the trial Court has not appreciated the ingredients of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure in right or proper perspective and because of its incorrect approach, it has dismissed I.A.No.25 of 2003 which needs to be corrected by this Court sitting in revision. Accordingly, this Court interferes with the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.25 of 2003 dated 20.01.2003 to promote substantial cause of justice and resultantly, allows the Civil Revision Petition to prevent an aberration of justice. 18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 21.01.2003 in I.A.No.25 of 2003 in I.A.No.485 of 2002 in O.S.No.15 of 2002 is set aside for the reasons assigned by this Court in this Revision Petition. 18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 21.01.2003 in I.A.No.25 of 2003 in I.A.No.485 of 2002 in O.S.No.15 of 2002 is set aside for the reasons assigned by this Court in this Revision Petition. The trial Court is directed to restore the I.A.No.25 of 2003 on file within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and further, it is directed to pass fresh orders on merits in a dispassionate manner, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court, in accordance with law and in the manner known to law.