9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal, extension of time for depositing costs, jurisdiction of the Court to extend time, condonation of delay, interpretation of Section 148 CPC. Analysis: The case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Additional District Judge in a Civil Appeal regarding the extension of time for depositing costs. The applicant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract, which was decreed with a condition that if the defendant deposited the required amount by a specified date, he would continue to be the owner of the house. The defendant failed to deposit the costs within the stipulated time but later deposited the amount along with a plea for condonation of delay and extension of time. The lower Court allowed the extension, leading to the appeal and subsequent revision petition. The main contention raised by the applicant's counsel was that the trial Court extended the time despite opposition and that once a specific date and condition were prescribed for depositing the amount, the Court had no power to extend the time. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the Court had the power to condone the delay and there was no defect in the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Court. The Court referred to Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows the Court to enlarge the period for doing any act even after the original period has expired. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Mahanth Ram Das and Smt. Periyakkal cases, the Court emphasized that the Courts have the jurisdiction to extend time under Section 148, even after the expiry of the original time fixed, to prevent manifest injustice. The Court also highlighted the importance of substantive justice over procedural justice and the principles of law that do not compel a person to perform the impossible. The Court concluded that the trial Court, by extending the time for the defendant, acted within the boundaries of the law and did not exceed its jurisdiction. Since there was no jurisdictional error, the revision petition was dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs. The judgment reaffirmed the Court's authority to extend time in appropriate cases to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.
|
