1983 (3) TMI 307 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the Court has the power to extend time under Section 148, CPC after a compromise has been made and an order of the Court has been passed?
- Whether the Court can extend time for depositing the decretal amount after a sale has been confirmed under Order 21 Rule 92, CPC?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute where the appellants failed to deposit a sum of money in accordance with a compromise agreement. The High Court dismissed their application to extend the time for depositing the amount, citing that the Court could not extend time when parties had stipulated a time frame in their compromise. The appellants argued that the Court had the authority to extend time under Section 148, CPC even after a compromise had been reached. They relied on precedents from the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta. The respondent contended that time should not be extended by the Court when parties had agreed on a specific timeline for depositing the amount.

Issue 2:
The Court referred to the decision in Hukamchand v. Bansilal, where it was established that the confirmation of a sale under Order 21 Rule 92 should follow the dismissal of an application under Order 21 Rule 90. The Court clarified that the time for depositing the decretal amount could not be extended to prevent the confirmation of the sale unless there was an agreement between the parties. In the present case, the Court distinguished the situation from Hukamchand's case, emphasizing that the parties had entered into a compromise, which became the basis for the time allowed by the Court. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in thinking it had no power to extend time and directed the High Court to reconsider the matter.

In summary, the judgment addressed the Court's authority to extend time under Section 148, CPC after a compromise and the limitations on extending time for depositing the decretal amount after a sale has been confirmed. The Court emphasized the importance of the parties' agreement and the Court's jurisdiction to prevent manifest injustice. The case was remanded to the High Court for further consideration.