IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
D.M. Rege, J.
Hindurao Annasaheb Patil (since deceased by his heirs) others.... Appellants.
Versus
Yeshwant Laxman Yadav.... Respondent.
Second Appeal No. 75 of 1981, decided on 21-6-1982.
Advocates appeared :
Ajit P. Shah, for appellants.
Nitin V. Pradhan, for respondent.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - CONDITIONAL DECREE - EXTENSION OF TIME - JURISDICTION - EQUITABLE GROUNDS - CONDITIONAL DECREE - NO JURISDICTION TO EXTEND TIME - EQUITABLE GROUNDS NOT MADE OUT - APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-decree-holder filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land. The trial court decreed the suit in plaintiff's favor, directing him to deposit Rs. 1,500/- within a month and ordering the defendant to execute the sale deed upon such deposit. Plaintiff deposited the amount on time. Defendant appealed, obtained a stay of the decree, and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal but modified the decree, directing plaintiff to deposit Rs. 3,000/- within two months, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. Plaintiff deposited the amount on time, but the defendant again appealed to the High Court, which also stayed the execution of the decree. The High Court eventually dismissed the appeal, confirming the Appellate Court's decree. Plaintiff then deposited the amount and filed a Darkhast for execution, which was opposed by the defendant on the ground that it was time-barred. Plaintiff applied for condonation of delay, but the trial court and the Appellate Court dismissed the application, holding that the decree being conditional, the court had no jurisdiction to extend time.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that in the case of a conditional decree, the court had no jurisdiction to extend time, following the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sahadu Tathu Patil v. Nayansikh and the Supreme Court's observations in Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das. The Court also held that the plaintiff had not made out any sufficient ground for exercise of equity in his favor, as the ground of illness was not substantiated and forgetfulness showed lack of diligence and promptitude.
Issues: 1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to extend time in the case of a conditional decree. 2. Whether the plaintiff had made out any sufficient ground for exercise of equity in his favor.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In the case of a conditional decree, the court has no jurisdiction to extend time. 2. Forgetfulness, which shows lack of diligence and promptitude, cannot be a ground for exercise of equity in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
2. The plaintiff-decree-holder had filed the said against the respondent/defendant for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the suit land. On 15-1-1969 the Civil Court decreed the suit in plaintiff's favour, directing the plaintiff to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,500/- in Court within a period of one month from the date of the decree and order the judgement-debtor-defendant to excuse the sale-deed on the decree-holder-plaintiff making such deposit. In pursuance of the direction the plaintiff deposited the amount of Rs. 1,500/- in Court on 10-2-1969. The Judgment-debtor however preferred an appeal against the said decree to the District Court at Sangli being Appeal No. 114 of 1969 and obtained an interim stay of the decree. The District Court dismissed the said appeal on 18-1-1971 but modified the decree of the lower Court by directing the Plaintiff to deposit Rs. 3,000/- (deducting costs of the lower Court) within a period of two months from the date of the decree of the Appellate Court. The decree further provided that if the said amount was not paid by the plaintiff as stated above his suit was to stand dismissed with costs in both the lower Courts. At the instance of the defendant, District Court by its order dated 2-4-1971 stayed the execution of the said decree. Thereafter the defendant preferred a second appeal to this Court against the said decree being S.A. No. 427/71. This Court also till the hearing and final disposal of the appeal stayed execution of the decree. On 26-6-1978 this Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of the Appellate Court.
3. Thereafter the plaintiff deposited the amount on 1-3-1979 and filled a Darkhast for execution being Regular Darkhast No. 39/79. The said darkhast was opposed by the respondent-judgment-debtor on the ground that the same was time barred as the deposit was not made within two months from 26-6-78 i.e. the date on which this Court dismissed the judgment-debtors S.A.No. 247 of 1977 and confirmed the lower Appellate Court's decree. The appellant/plaintiff, therefore, on 23-7-1979 made an application for condonation of delay for making deposit.
4. As stated by the plaintiff in the said application he had already deposited Rs. 1,500/- on 10-2-1969. The total costs awarded to him by the lower Court and the Appellate Court came to Rs. 566.30. Thus in reality he had to deposit only Rs. 933.70. He , however, could not deposit the said amount in Court because of the stay order, till the dismissal of the defendant's second appeal by this Court confirming the order of the Appellate Court. He further stated that taking into consideration costs of Rs. 306/- awarded to him in second appeal he was required to deposit only rs. 627.70 in the Court appeal on 26-6-1978. i.e. within two months from the dismissal of the second appeal on 26-6-1978., which he could do because of illness and forgetfulness.
5. The learned Civil Judge firstly found that one of the reasons put forward by the plaintiff for delay, viz. being confined to bed due to illness was not supported by evidence such as medical certificate. As regards the second reason viz. forgetfulness the learned Judge found that the plaintiff should suffer for his lack of diligence and promptitude. The Court further held that even if the said grounds for delay were held to be genuine, the decree being conditional the Court was not empowered
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.