T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.
1. In these days when social justice is the order of the day, Courts also have to align themselves with such environment which would generate harmony not only between the Court and community at large. This is a case in which the following order was passed as a condition precedent for setting aside an ex parte decree:
The petition will be allowed on payment of Rs. 25 on or before 6th April, 1974 as a condition precedent, failing which petition shall stand dismissed.
The 6th and 7th of April, 1974, were holidays. The order did not specify as to whom the payment should be made, namely the party or the counsel or whether it would be deposited in Court to the credit of the suit. The petitioner took one of such available courses, and tendered the amount on the 8th April, 1974, to the Head Clerk, civil Court who refused to receive the same. The petitioner filed an application to the Court to grant him two days' time for depositing the amount which was available with him but which he could not pay within the time as directed. This was refused on the ground that the petitioner ought to have paid it either to the party or to counsel. As it is not in dispute that 6th and 7th of April, 1974 were holidays, the amount was tendered on the 8th of April, 1974 to the Head Clerk and it is therefore a bona fide tender. It was in this perspective that I started by saying that the elements of social justice should also be borne in mind, while administering legal justice. The Court below was wooden in having refused pay the costs. Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to pass such orders. There is thus an error apparent in the order of the Court below. The order is therefore set aside. The costs directed to be paid by the petitioner is now paid to counsel appearing in the Court for the respondent. The petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs. 50 to the respondent towards the cost of these proceedings. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
2. The suit is of the year 1973. The District Munsif of Tindivanam is directed to set the suit for hearing, after restoring the same to file, and dispose of the same in August, 1979, without giving any adjournment, and after hearing the parties in full, and report such disposal to this Court by the end of that month.