Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 572 (MAD)

Aruldoss v. Dhobidhas

2013-01-24

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 08.11.2012, passed in I.A.NO.17 of 2011 in O.S.No.57 of 2010, by the learned III Additional District Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukkottai. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de coeur and heart burns of his client to the effect that while the lower Court allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, awarded a cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff within a stipulated time; however, the said amount could not be paid in time; whereupon the dismissal direction came into operation automatically; whereupon this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. I would like to disambiguate the ambiguity, if any, and dispel the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner by pointing out that despite the lapse of time and the dismissal direction having coming into operation by itself in view of non-payment of costs, the petitioner is entitled to file application before the same Court and pray for extension of time. Whereupon the Court in its discretion could either grant or reject it, but the question of jurisdiction or functus officio does not arise. 5. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of. No costs.