AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 140 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram, for the relief of
specific performance of a sale agreement against the defendants. The suit was decreed as prayed for, directing the defendants to execute the sale
deed, with a condition that the petitioner shall deposit the sale consideration within a period of one month from the date of the decree, namely,
14.03.2008. In the affidavit, it is stated that he could not deposit the amount as directed by the court, within the time and hence further time of two
months is prayed for. The petition was filed on 22.03.2008, of course, after the time prescribed by the court below.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. Anand Chandrasekar would submit that it is well-settled principles of law that even after the
expiry of time, the time could be extended by the court u/s 148 and 151 of C.P.C and it is specifically provided u/s 148 of CPC that the court has
got the power to enlarge the time for compliance on condition or direction by one month. Within one month from the date of the expiry period, the
petitioner has filed the application. He placed reliance upon a decision of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Mahanth Ram Das Vs. Ganga
Das, , wherein, the Lordships have held as follows:
The High Court was not powerless to enlarge the time even though it had peremptorily fixed the period for payment. Section 148, in terms,
allowed extension of time, even if the original period fixed had expired and Section 149 was equally liberal. A fortiori, those Sections could be
invoked by the applicant, when the time had not actually expired. An order extending time for payment, though passed after the expiry of the time
fixed, could operate from the date on which the time fixed expired.
The subsequent judgments of this court with consistent view are also to the effect that the courts are not percluded from enlarging the time for
compliance of a particular direction by the court, even after the period sitpulated in the order was over.
In such view of this matter, the court below is directed to dispose of the application, guided by the principles liad down by the Supreme Court
and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and the order of rejection made by the court below in I.A. No. ...of 2008 in O.S. No.
1140 of 2007, dated 01.08.2008 is set aside.
In view of the above said findings, the learned District Munsif, Oddanchatram is directed to restore the un-numbered interlocutory application
filed u/s 148 and 151 of CPC which was rejected by him on 01.08.2008 to file, to hear the petitioner again and to pass orders accordingly on the
basis of the settled principles.
With the above said direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.