SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1543

1996(7) Supreme 378
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Yeshoda & Anr. -Petitioners
versus
K. Nagarajan -Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18603 of 1996
Decided on 25-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : P. Mahale, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 148, Civil Procedure Code gives power to the court to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of the court from time to time.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 148-Power of Court to enlarge time for complying with orders of court from time to time-Suit for specific performance-High Court agreed with suggestion of respondent to pay a further sum of Rs.1,80,000/- - High Court extended three months time for deposit of amount-SLP--Dismissed-Amount deposited within three months thereafter-Application u/s 28 of Specific Relief Act to rescind decree-Dismissed-Respondent s application for extension of time allowed-Court correctly exercised discretion.

       Held: Section 148,CPC gives power to the court to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of the Court from time to time. Under those circumstances, the court has correctly exercised the discretion since the amount came to be deposited within three months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition. (Para 2)

       

ORDER

This Special Leave Petition arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated June 19, 1996 in I.A. No. 3 in RFA No. 225/84. The admitted position is that in the suit for specific performance the High Court has agreed with the suggestion of the respondent to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. The High Court has extended three months time from April 21, 1994 for deposit of the amount. Special Leave Petition filed in this Court was dismissed on September 23, 1994 and within three months thereafter on January 17, 1995 the amount came to be deposited. An application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was filed to rescind the decree on the ground that the respondent had committed default in compliance of the conditional decree of the deposit of the amount. The respondent had filed an application for extension of time. The application for rescission of the decree was dismissed and the application for extension of time was allowed. Thus this special leave petition.

2. It is contended by Mr. Mahale, learned counsel for the petitioner, that after the expiry of the time prescribed by the court, the petitioner has a right to seek rescission of the decree for specific performance for noncompliance. The Court, therefore, has no power to enlarge the time. We find no force in the contention. Section 148, CPC gives power to the court to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of the Court from time to time. Under those circumstances, the court has correctly exercised the discretion since the amount came to be deposited within three months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition.

3. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

SLP accordingly dismissed.

********

Parallel Citatons of other Journals :

Yeshoda & Anr. v. K. Nagarajan, 1996(7) Supreme 378

00023

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top