JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, plaintiff in Eviction Suit No. 06 of 2008, is aggrieved of order dated 15.9.2012 by which his application seeking extension of time for complying with order dated 28.11.2011 has been declined. 2. Eviction Suit No. 06 of 2008 was instituted for ejection of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. After the plaintiffs evidence was closed and the defendant filed examination-in-chief of one of his witnesses, an application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit was filed on 12.8.2011. This application was allowed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 28.11.2011, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- within one month. This order was not complied by the plaintiff within time and therefore seeking extension of time for complying with order dated 28.11.2011 an application was filed on 17.3.2012. Observing that after disposal of the suit the Court has become functus officio, this application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court. 3. Plea taken by the petitioner is that he had no knowledge of the peremptory order dated 28.11.2011 and that is why cost as imposed by the Trial Court could not be deposited within one month. 4. Order 23, Rule 1, C.P.C provides that the plaintiff may at any stage of the suit as against all or any of the defendants may abandon the suit or abandon a part of his claim, however, sub-rule (3) to Rule 1 to Order 23 C.P.C provides that if for some formal defect the suit would fail, the Court may permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to institute a fresh suit. Application dated 12.8.2011 filed by the plaintiff was not under Order 23, Rule 1, C.P.C rather it was under sub-rule (3) to Rule 1 to Order 23, C.P.C. After the plaintiff has led his evidence, in my opinion, he cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the ground that there is formal defect on account of which the suit would fail. 5. Leaving aside the aforesaid issue, the impugned order dated 15.9.2012, in my opinion, does not warrant interference of this Court. 5. Leaving aside the aforesaid issue, the impugned order dated 15.9.2012, in my opinion, does not warrant interference of this Court. Powers under section 148 read with section 151 C.P.C for extending the time granted by the Court for complying its order can be exercised only if the application for extension of time was filed within first 30 days from the last date for complying the order of the Court. By the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (w.e.f. 1.7.2002) the period of 30 days has been provided under section 148 C.P.C, with a view to curtail procedural delay caused by the parties in disposal of the suit. It provides that extension of time for complying with the Court''s order cannot exceed 30 days. If application for extension of time is filed beyond 30 days of the expiry of the original order, in exercise of powers under section 148 C.P.C time granted by the Court cannot be extended. There may be a case in which on account of the reasons beyond the control of the parties certain period shall be excluded while calculating the period of 30 days, but this is not a situation in the present case. The conducting lawyer cannot plead that he had no knowledge of the Court''s order. Certified copy of the impugned order dated 28.11.2011 discloses that application for obtaining certified copy of the said order was made on 13.3.2012 and the certified copy was made ready on 15.3.2012. Apparently, the petitioner has taken a false plea. 6. In the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.9.2012 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The Trial Court shall proceed with trial of Eviction Suit No. 06 of 2008, in accordance with law. 7. In view of the explanation offered by Mr. Pramod Kumar, the learned Counsel, no further order is required to be passed in continuance of order dated 1.5.2018.