G. Maheswaran, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in l.A. No. 144 of 1985 in O.S. No. 211 of 1978 on his file. From the laconic order passed by the Subordinate Judge, one is not able to gather the facts. The affidavit of the petitioner-plaintiff shows that he filed the suit O.S. No. 211 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court for declaration that the termination of his services as professor in the college was illegal. The suit was posted for trial and the defendant remained ex parte and a decree ex parte was passed on 15th March, 1983. The defendant filed l.A. No. 276 of 1983 for setting aside the ex parte decree and that was also dismissed for default on 2nd July, 1983. He then filed l.A. No. 408 of 1983 for restoration of l.A. No. 276 of 1983 to file and the same was restored but was again dismissed for default on 30th January, 1984. The defendant again filed l. A. No. 144 of 1984 for restoration of LA. No. 408 of 1983, and after hearing the parties, the Court allowed the application on 28th July, 1984 on condition that the defendant should pay a sum of Rs. 50 on or before 31st July, 1984. But the defendant did not pay the costs on 31st July, 1984. But on 1st August, 1984, the defendant's advocate approached the plaintiff's advocate and wanted an ante-dated receipt but as it was refused by the plaintiff's advocate, the defendant filed a memo and made an oral representation before Court that the other side had refused to receive the costs and thereupon the Court passed an order permitting him to remit the costs into Court and allowed I.A. No. 144 of 1984.
2. It is against that order, the Civil Revision Petition is now filed. One of the contentions of the revision petitioner is that there is no application under Section 148, Civil Procedure Code. But an affidavit filed by the counsel on record in the lower court shows that he made an oral application before the Court below bringing to its notice that he was not able to meet the plaintiff's Counsel Sankaran in spite of his best efforts before 31st Jury, 1984, but on 1st August, 1984, when the application was called in open Court, he orally represented in the Court that the costs could not be paid before 31st July, 1984 and offered the payment of costs in open court and that the plaintiff was not present on that day, but one Nallaswami, Junior of the planitiff's counsel was present, and that the matter was passed over that, even though the plaintiff's counsel was apprised of the matter, he refused to receive the costs and that he did not ask him to pase any ante-dated receipt. The further averment in the affidavit of the counsel is that when the matter was called in open court he represented that the plaintiff's counsel refused to receive the costs and that the court directed him to deposit the amount into the Court and asked him to file a memo and as directed by the Court, he filed a memo and deposited Rs. 50. From these averments of the counsel on record, it is clear that notwithstanding the efforts of the counsel, he could not pay the amount to the plaintiff's counsel before 31st July, 1984, and he made representation of those facts to the Court which directed him to file a memo and deposit the amount. Under Section 148, Civil Procedure , Code, the Court has power to extend the period fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by it and such discretion could be exercised from time to time even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. In this case, the period for payment of costs has expired on 31st July, 1984, but the Court acted upon the words of the counsel for the defendant that notwithstanding his best efforts he was not able to pay the costs before 31st July, 1984 and extended the time on the oral representation made by the counsel for the defendant. In such circumstances, there is no need to file a written application under Section 148, Civil Procedure Code.
3. It is now settled law that the Court has powers to extend the time even though it has peremptorily fixed the period for payment. If authority is needed for that position it is to be found in Mahanth Ramdas v. Gangadas : 3SCR763 . As sufficient cause was made out by the counsel for the defendant, the court was justified in extending the time. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.