ORDER : 1. This revision petition is arising out of the order dated 28.09.2010 passed in IA No. 218 of 2010 in OS No. of 2010 by the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit based on the promissory note. The court below returned the plaint filed in the said suit with some objections. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the revision petitioner/plaintiff fell ill and suffered with Jaundice and undergone treatment at Sreedhar Nursing Home Guntakal. Immediately after recovery, the revision petitioner enquired about the stage of the case and came to know about return of the plaint, raising some objections, had represented the same before the court below. In that process, there was a delay of 83 days in representing the plaint. The revision petitioner had filed IA No. 217 of 2010 before the court below seeking to condone the delay of 83 days in representing the returned plaint. The court below dismissed the said application on the ground that as per the provisions under Section 148 C.P.C. holding that the statutory period of 30 days exceeded in representing the plaint. The trial court also observed that the provisions of Section 151 CPC are not applicable when there is specific provision for such relief sought in the above application. Aggrieved by the order of trial court, the present revision petition is filed. 3. Despite service of notice, there is no representation for the respondent. Since this CRP is of the year 2011, the same is being disposed of after hearing learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 4. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for revision petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Dr. H.C. Upadhya vs. A.R. Rustom Fram and others, 2006 (2) ALT 170 wherein this Court placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in M.A. Mikheed v. C. Pandurangam, 2005 (3) ALT 424 and the decision of the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India, 2005 (5) SCJ 519. H.C. Upadhya vs. A.R. Rustom Fram and others, 2006 (2) ALT 170 wherein this Court placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in M.A. Mikheed v. C. Pandurangam, 2005 (3) ALT 424 and the decision of the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India, 2005 (5) SCJ 519. The relevant Para-14 in Salem Advocate Bar Association’s case cited supra (3) is extracted as under: “We have no doubt that the upper limit fixed in Section 148 cannot take away the inherent power of the Court to pass orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of this court. The rigid operation of the Section would lead to absurdity. Section 151 has therefore, to be allowed to operate fully. Extension beyond maximum of 30 days, thus, can be permitted if the act could not be performed within 30 days for reasons beyond the control of the party. We are not dealing with a case where time for doing an act has been prescribed under the provisions of the Limitation Act, which cannot be extended either under Section 148 or Section 151. We are dealing with a case where the time is fixed or granted by the Court for performance of an act prescribed or allowed by the court.” 6. In the instant case, the trial court has returned the plaint with certain objection for its resubmission within the stipulated time. The revision petitioner due to the reasons mentioned in the affidavit could not represent the matter before the trial court within the time. In the light of the decisions cited supra, it is made clear that if the Act could not be performed within 30 days for the reasons beyond the control of the party, time can be extended either under Section 148 of 151 CPC. It is obvious that the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the instant case, as there is no statutory bar created for representing the matter. In the light of the decisions cited supra, this court is of the view that the interpretation of the trial court does not hold good and without appreciating the reasons for the delay in representation. There is satisfactory evidence in filing the petition for the reasons beyond the control of the party. The medical reasons stated by the petitioner, are sufficient for condoning the delay. There is satisfactory evidence in filing the petition for the reasons beyond the control of the party. The medical reasons stated by the petitioner, are sufficient for condoning the delay. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 28.09.2010 passed in IA No. 218 of 2010 in OS No. of 2010 by the court of Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda, subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act. However, the trial court is directed to receive the plaint if it is otherwise in order. No costs. 8. Miscellaneous Petitions if any pending shall stand closed.