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

2000 Supreme(SC) 779

2000(6) Supreme 229
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
K.S. Muthu -Appellant
versus
T. Govindarajulu & Anr. -Respondents
SLP (C) No. 2628 of 2000
Decided on 13-4-2000

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963-Sections 10 and 16-Payment of amount in terms of decree-Delay in-Last date for deposit of amount was 6.9.1997-5.9.1997 was declared as a holiday and 6th and 7th became Saturday and Sunday-Decree-holder making application on 8.9.1997 to permit him to deposit amount-Rejection stating that be should not have waited till last date-Held: when a period of time has been granted to a party to fulfil a condition, until expiration of that period, it cannot be said as to why a particular act has not been done before time-Order passed in such matters are made in terrorem to fulfil conditions-Lower Court s order set aside-Amount deposited during pendency of appeal before Supreme Court in terms of its direction treated to have been made in pursuance of decree. (Para 4)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. A suit for specific performance was decreed on August 30, 1997 and the Appellant was granted one week s time to deposit the balance of sale consideration in the Court and the last date for depositing the said amount was September 6, 1997. It is stated that September 5, 1997 was declared to be a holiday and September 6/7, 1997 being Saturday and Sunday were again general holidays and in these circumstances the Appellant made an application to permit him to deposit the amount on September 8, 1997. The trial Court declined to grant permission to deposit the amount on September 8, 1997 by stating that the Appellant ought not to have waited till the last date; that if really he had money in his hands, he would have deposited within the four days and not having done so he cannot seek indulgence of the Court now. On that basis the trial Court rejected the application for extension of time.

3. A Revision petition was filed but the High Court declined to interfere with the order made by the trial Court and rejected the said petition, hence this appeal.

4. On February 25, 2000 when this matter came up for hearing before us, we directed that the Appellant shall deposit the said amount within a period of one week from the date of the order. The said amount was deposited on March 2, 2000. In the circumstances when the Appellant was not in a position to perform the direction given by the Court in view of the holiday, the Court cannot expect the Appellant to perform what is impossible. Further, when a period of time has been granted to a party to fulfil a condition, until expiration of that period, it cannot be said as to why a particular act has not been done before that time. The order passed in such matters are made in terrorem to fulfil conditions. In the circumstance we think it is appropriate to set aside the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the trial Court and direct that the amount deposited by the Appellant be treated to have been made in pursuance of the decree made by the trial Court originally. On other aspects, we express - no opinion. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

(C.R.) Appeal allowed.

****************

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

K.S. Muthu v. T. Govidarajulu & Anr., 2000(6) Supreme 229

00019

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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