JUDGMENT :

K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This case brings back to memory the classic words of Justice M. Hidayatullah (as the learned Chief Justice then was) in Mahanth Ram Das vs. Ganga Das, (1961) 3 SCR 763. Though it was in the context of the Code of Civil Procedure, dealing with the powers of a Civil Court, the following passage does repay study for the present facts too:

“......Such procedural orders, though peremptory (conditional decrees apart) are, in essence, in terrorem, so that dilatory litigants might put themselves in order and avoid delay. They do not, however, completely e-stop a Court from taking note of events and circumstances which happen within the time fixed. For example, it cannot be said that, if the appellant had started with the full money ordered to be paid and came well in time but was set upon and robbed by thieves on the day previous, he could not ask for extension of time, or that the Court was powerless to extend it. Such orders are not like the law of the Medes and the Persians.....”

(Emphasis supplied)

3. The question which arises for consideration in this case is, on the facts herein, are we to construe Clause 2.22.0 (ix) of the tender cond