AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an application for revision against the order of the learned trial Court whereby it extended the time for deposit of the redemption money. The decree for redemption was passed with the consent of the parties. The redemption money had to be deposited on or before the 1st February 1965. However, deposit was not made on the due date. Instead, the mortgagor went up in appeal against the consent decree right up to this Court and ultimately he made an application on 3rd of May 1967 for extension of time to make the deposit of Rs. 2600/-. The application has been allowed by the trial Court.
The trial Court based itself on AIR 1927 586 (Oudh) . The contention of Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend time. The learned counsel relies on Surat Singh v. Bhikhiwind Co-op Ex. Service Military v. Bhikhiwind 1970 CriLJ 104 (Punj). That authority prima facie does support him, but I am very doubtful if it will cover the case of a redemption suit. It is immaterial whether the order of redemption is passed with the consent of the parties or otherwise. Order 34, Rule 7 of the CPC confers power on the Court to extend time of deposit the redemption money. I, therefore, see no ground to interfere in revision with the order of the trial Court.
Mr. Sarin is, however, firm on another ground. His contention is that if the amount of Rs. 2600/- had been paid to him on the due date, he would have benefited by it. The property mortgaged with him does not yield any income. In this situation the proper course to adopt was to grant the application for extension of time with the rider that the decree-holder would be liable to interest on the amount of Rs. 2600/- at the rate of six percent per annum from the 1st February 1965 to the date the payment is actually made Mr. Puri, who appears for the respondent decree-holder, has no objection to this order being passed. He says that his client would pay the interest.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition is disposed of in the manner already indicated. There will be no order as to costs. The respondent is allowed two months'' time to make the necessary deposit along with interest failing which extension of time will be deemed to have been refused.
Ordered accordingly.