1924 (12) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cotton, and by this was meant 63 specified bales, which had been subject matter of litigation in the suit, should be delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants at the latters' shop at Meerut on or before the 3rd March, 1922. If the plaintiffs failed to comply with this condition, then they were to have a decree only for ₹ 7,125 with proportionate costs. On the 3rd of March, 1922 the plaintiffs applied to the Court to extend the time. The first application presented by them purported to be under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and this application was necessarily rejected by the Court in. view, of the Full Bench decision in Suranjan Singh v. Rambahal Lal (1913) 35 All. 582. Immediately, and on the very same day, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e decree for any other sufficient reason. 2. We have before us an appeal by the defendants against that order. This appeal, excepting so far as it deals with the merits of the question, is based mainly upon the technical ground that the words for any other sufficient reason in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, must not be extended to matters which are not strictly, ejusdem generis with those referred to in the earlier part of the rule. Reliance is also placed on the argument that a Court should not be permitted to do in the guise of a review of judgment, something which, according to the decisions of this Court, it is not expressly empowered to do either by Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or by any other r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rdinate Judge is examined in detail, it will be seen that the position remains somewhat as follows. The plaintiffs had time from the 3rd of January to the 3rd of March, 1922 within which to take certain steps. They began to interest themselves actively in the matter on the 3rd of February, 1922. They were then prevented by cause wholly beyond their control from carrying out the order of the Court within the period of one month then left to them. It is a very arguable point whether the plaintiff, who was examined by the learned Subordinate Judge, did offer any reasonable explanation of the delay between the 3rd of January and the 3rd of February, 1922. On the other hand, there is some force in the contention of counsel representing the plain .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X