A court cannot grant an extension of time for payment of instalments under a decree without the consent of the decree-holder.

Headnote:
DECREE - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT OF INSTALMENTS - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER XX, RULE 11 - COURT'S POWER TO GRANT EXTENSION - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendants for the payment of a certain sum of money by instalments. The defendants defaulted on the instalments and applied for an extension of time for payment. The plaintiff opposed the application, arguing that the court had no power to grant an extension of time without the consent of the decree-holder.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that it had no power to grant an extension of time for payment of the instalments under the decree without the consent of the decree-holder. The court interpreted Order XX, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code as providing that the court could only grant instalments at the time of passing the decree or with the consent of the decree-holder after the passing of the decree.
Issues: 1. Whether the court had the power to grant an extension of time for payment of the instalments under the decree without the consent of the decree-holder. 2. Whether the provisions of Order XX, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code applied to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Order XX, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code applied to the case and that the court had no power to grant an extension of time for payment of the instalments without the consent of the decree-holder. The court reasoned that Order XX, Rule 11(2) only allowed the court to grant instalments or vary the time for payment of instalments at a date subsequent to the passing of the decree with the consent of the decree-holder.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendants' application for an extension of time for payment of the instalments.

JUDGMENT - MANOHAR SUJATA V., J.: - The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,35,181/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 4,28,750 from the date of suit till payment and for costs of the suit. The suit was filed as a Summary Suit by the plaintiff under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the suit decree on admission as prayed was granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The minutes of the decree, however, which were filed by the parties provided that if the defendants pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4,21,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by the monthly instalments as detailed the under, the decree was to be marked as fully satisfied. The amount was to be paid by monthly instalments which were set out in the minutes and it was provided that if the defendants committed a default in payment of any two instalments the plaintiff was entitled to execute the decree forthwith and recover the entire decretal amount or the balance then unpaid. The defendants also undertook not to dispose of their factory premises specified therein till the entire amount of the decree was paid over to the plaintiff and/or the decree was satisfied. The decree on admission was obtained on 26th July, 1982. In terms of the decree the defendants paid monthly instalments upto March 1983. Thereafter they have not paid any further monthly instalments. They have taken out the present chamber summons on 8th September, 1983 asking for extension of time for payment of the monthly instalments under the said decree as from April 1983 onwards. They have asked for an extension of six months for payment of each of the instalments due under the decree from April 1983 onwards.

They have also prayed that all further proceedings in execution of the decree be stayed on such terms and conditions as may be fixed. The latter prayer has been asked for because in view of the defaults committed by the defendants, the plaintiff has attached certain properties of the defendants. Under an ad interim order dated 9th September, 1983 passed in the Chamber Summons the defendants have deposited a further amount of Rs. 40,000/- which is equivalent to 2 months instalments, in Court.

2. This Chamber Summons is being opposed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has submitted that in view of the decree which has been passed by this Court on 26th July, 1982 the Court is now functus officio and it has no power to grant any extension of time for payment of any instalments as specified in the said decree. In order to examine this contention it is necessary to look at the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Under Order XX, Rule 11, sub-rules (1) and (2) it is provided as follows:

“Order XX, Rule 11(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may for any sufficient reason incorporated in the decree, after hearing such of the parties who had appeared personally or by pleader at the last hearing before judgment, make an order that payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made by instalments, with or without interest, notwithstanding anything contained in the contract under which the money is payable.

(2) After the passing of any such decree the Court may, on the application of the judgment-debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder, order that payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made by instalments on such terms as to the payment of interest, the attachment of the taking of security from him, or otherwise, as it thinks fit.”

Thus when the decree is for the payment of money the Court may at the time of passing of the decree provide for payment of the decretal amount by instalments. This power is required to be exercised by the Court at the time of the passing of the decree. Under sub-rule (2) power is given to the Court to grant instalments at a date subsequent to the passing of the decree, but only if the decree-holder cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document