Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.MADHAVA REDDY
Kishwari Begum - Appellant
Versus
Quadiri Begum - Respondent
Decided On : 12-01-76
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTIONS 148, 149, 151 - INTERPRETATION - POWER OF COURT TO EXTEND TIME - COURT CAN EXTEND TIME EVEN AFTER PRONOUNCING AND SIGNING JUDGMENT - COURT CAN ALSO RECTIFY MISTAKES IN ITS JUDGMENT TO PREVENT INJUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants in CMA No. 192/1973 and CMA No. 84/1974 were directed by the court to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of a survey to determine the excess land, if any, in possession of each shareholder. The appellant in CMA No. 192/1973 failed to deposit his share of the amount within the prescribed time. The court below proposed to treat both the appeals as having stood dismissed by virtue of a clause in the judgment which stated that in case of default of either of the appellants, both the appeals shall stand dismissed. The appellants in CMA No. 84/1974 filed petitions seeking clarification of the clause and expressing their readiness to deposit the balance amount due on account of the appellant in CMA No. 192/1973.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the clause in the judgment which stated that in case of default of either of the appellants, both the appeals shall stand dismissed, was imprecise and did not reflect the true intention of the court. The court further held that it had the power to extend the time for depositing the amount even after pronouncing and signing the judgment, in exercise of its powers under Sections 148 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court also held that it was its duty to rectify the mistake in the judgment to prevent injustice.
Issues: 1. Whether the court had the power to extend the time for depositing the amount even after pronouncing and signing the judgment? 2. Whether the court could rectify the mistake in the judgment to prevent injustice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it had the power to extend the time for depositing the amount even after pronouncing and signing the judgment, in exercise of its powers under Sections 148 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mahanth Ram Das vs. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 882, which held that the court has power to extend the time not only when the applications are made before the expiry of the time prescribed by the earlier order or judgment as the case may be but also on a petition filed after the expiry of the prescribed time. 2. The court held that it was its duty to rectify the mistake in the judgment to prevent injustice. The court relied on the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions filed by the appellants in CMA No. 84/1974 and clarified that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- and such further sums as may be called for from them by the Commissioner from time to time, shall have to be deposited by the appellants in CMA Nos. 192/1973 and 84/1974, in proportion to their shares inter se and that, the default clause shall operate separately in case of each appeal. The court also allowed the petition filed by the appellant in CMA No. 192/1973 and permitted him to pay his share of the amount through the appellants in CMA No. 84/1974.
( 1 ) CIVIL Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 192/1973, 84 of 1974 and 119 of 1976 were disposed of by a Bench consisting of Sri S. Obul Reddi, C. J. , and one of us (Jeevan Reddy, J.) under the judgment and decree dated 17-3 1976. All the three C. M. As. were allowed and certain directions were given by this Court. The main idea behind the several directions given, was that there should be a re-survey of the entire extent of land in possession of each of the share-holders (appellants in C. M. A. No. 192/73 and 8 /1974) after notice to all the concerned parties, for determining the excess land, if any, in possession of each such shareholder, as per the terms of the compromise decree passed by this Court in C. C. C. A. No. 7 of 1957 and A. S. No. 52 of 1956, dated 29-4-1960. If any excess was to be found, the same was to be delivered into the possession of Smt. Ahmedibegum and Smt. Khadri Begum in accordance with the said compromise decree. To enable the survey to be carried out at an early date and without any undue delay, this court directed the parties to deposit certain amounts towards the cost of the said survey. Direction No. (2) (hereinafter referred to as clause (2) is relevant for the purpose of the present C. M. Ps. and has, therefore, to be set out:-" (2) that, the appellants in C. M. A. Nos. 192/73 and 84/74 do deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) (in proportion to their shares interse) with the Receiver within two months from today towards the expenses required for implementing the directions contained in clause (1) above, and shall continue to deposit such further sums as may be necessary, and may be called for from time to time by the Commissioner for implementing the directions contained in clause (1) above. Smt. Ahmedi Begum and Smt. Khadri Begum shall, in their turn deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand only) with the commissioner within two months from today. It is further directed that in case the appellants in C. M. A. Nos. 192/73 and 84/1974 fail to deposit the said sum of Rs. 5,000/- or such further sums as may be called for from them by the Commissioner within the time prescribed therefor, the said C. M. A. Nos. 192/73 and 84/1974 shall stand dismissed, and the judgment under appeal shall be implemented. Further, if the said Ahmedi begum and Khadri Begum fail to deposit the said sum of Rs. 1,000/- directed to be deposited by them, their petition, E. P. No. 3/1972, in which the judgment and order under appeal is passed, shall stand dismissed. "
( 2 ) IT appears that, in accordance with the above directions appellants in c. M. A. No. 84/1974 deposited their share of Rs. 5,000/- within the prescribed period, but the appellant in C. M. A. No. 192/1975 could not do so. He applied for extension of time for such deposit in C. M. P No. 5068 of 1976 and this court extended the time for deposit of his share of the amount, until the end of July, 1976. Even within the said extended time he could not deposit his share of the amount. Thereupon, the court below proposed to treat both the appeals, C. M A. Nos. 192/1973, and as well as 84/1974, as having stood dismissed by virtue of the above clause (2 ). In other words, the third paragraph in clause (2) was construed as meaning that, for default of either of the appellants, both the appeals shall stand dismissed. When the appellants in C. M. A. No. 84/1974 came to know of the said position, they approached this court by way of C. M. P. Nos. 10356 and 10357 of 1976. The first petition is for a clarification of paragraph 3 in clause (2. They want this court to clarify that the default of the appellant in C. M A. No. 192/1973 shall not, in any manner, affect them, so long as they continue to comply with the directions given by this court. In the other petition, they have expressed their readiness to deposit the balance amount of Rs 5,000/- due on account of the appellant in c. M. A. No. 192/73 also, so that the survey can proceed. This peti
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
