9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 943 - SC - Indian LawsWhether Section 148 of the CPC in our opinion clearly reserves in favour of the Court the power to enlarge the time required for doing an act prescribed or allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure? Whether extension can be legally granted in a case like the one at hand where non making of the deposit would result in a civil consequence like a decree of eviction against the appellant? Whether the appellant has made out a case for extension? Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case extension of time is justified for making of the deposit and if so on what terms.
Issues Involved:
1. Extension of time for deposit of compensation. 2. Compliance with the High Court's decree. 3. Jurisdiction to extend time under Section 148 of the CPC. 4. Bonafide mistake by the appellant. 5. Execution of the decree. Detailed Analysis: 1. Extension of time for deposit of compensation: The appellant sought an extension of time to deposit Rs. 10,000 as compensation, as directed by the High Court. The High Court had dismissed the application for extension, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had made a bonafide mistake by preparing a bank draft in the respondent's name and sending it by registered post instead of depositing it in the Trial Court. The Court observed that the appellant's actions demonstrated good faith, and therefore, an extension of time was warranted. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted an extension of eight weeks for the deposit, subject to additional costs. 2. Compliance with the High Court's decree: The High Court's decree required the appellant to deposit Rs. 10,000 in the Trial Court within four months, failing which an eviction decree would be passed. The appellant misunderstood the decree and sent a bank draft directly to the respondent, which was not encashed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant's misunderstanding did not amount to deliberate non-compliance. The Court held that the appellant's subsequent offer to deposit the amount afresh indicated no deliberate inaction, justifying the extension of time. 3. Jurisdiction to extend time under Section 148 of the CPC: The Supreme Court examined whether the Court had the jurisdiction to extend the time fixed by the High Court for making the deposit. Section 148 of the CPC allows the Court to enlarge the period for doing any act prescribed or allowed by the Code. The Court referenced several precedents, including Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das and Chinnamarkathian v. Ayyavoo, affirming that the power to fix time inherently includes the power to extend it. The Court concluded that there was no statutory limitation preventing the extension of time in this case. 4. Bonafide mistake by the appellant: The appellant's mistake in sending the bank draft directly to the respondent instead of depositing it in the Trial Court was acknowledged as bonafide. The Supreme Court found that the appellant's actions, including the preparation and dispatch of the bank draft and the subsequent offer to deposit the amount afresh, demonstrated good faith. This bonafide mistake was a significant factor in the Court's decision to grant an extension of time. 5. Execution of the decree: The High Court had directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree, as the deposit was not made in the Trial Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not consider the appellant's request for an extension of time on its merits. The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court was correct in stating it could not extend the time fixed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court decided to intervene and grant the extension itself to avoid further litigation, emphasizing the need to meet the ends of justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's prayer for an extension of time to deposit Rs. 10,000 by eight weeks, subject to additional costs of Rs. 10,000. The Court clarified that if the appellant deposited a total of Rs. 20,000 within two months, the suit filed by the respondent would stand dismissed; otherwise, the decree passed by the Trial Court would be executed. The appeals were disposed of with these directions.
|
