JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties. An interesting question arises in the present application i.e. whether the Court could consider a prayer for extension of time to abide by a stipulation recorded in consent terms on the basis of which this Court had disposed of an earlier application, in the face of opposition by the rival party. In other words, as to whether extension of time to abide by such a stipulation recorded in consent terms could be granted only with the consent of the rival party.

2. The brief facts leading up to filing of the present application are, that disputes between the parties led to an arbitration proceeding, culminating in a consent award being passed by a learned arbitrator. The original claimant initiated execution proceedings before this Court and an interim application was moved for certain reliefs.

3. This was in the context of a development agreement executed between the parties, whereby the applicant herein was supposed to provide tenements of enhanced area to the members of the original claimant society and then to exploit the commercial component thereof. The interim application filed by the original claimant claimed certain reliefs, including a direction for handing over possession and ancillary directions.

4. It appears that when the application i.e. Interim Application No.245/2022 came up for consideration, the members of the original claimant society had already received possession of their respective flats and in that backdrop, consent terms were executed between the parties on 29/4/2022. These consent terms recorded specific undertakings given on behalf of the applicant herein, including an undertaking that it would obtain full occupation certificate on or before 31/3/2023. On the same day i.e. on 29/4/2022, this Court passed an order disposing of the said interim application as per the consent terms, specifically recording that there shall be an order in terms of the consent terms.

5. It appears that after the said application was disposed of as per the consent terms, certain steps were undertaken by the applicant herein for completing construction of the entire proposed building and obtaining full occupation certification on or before 31/3/2023. But, according to the applicant, due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, the said timeline was impossible to comply with and therefore, on 20/2/2023, the present application was filed with a prayer for grant of extension of further six months for obtaining the necessary certificates, completing the construction and obtaining full occupation certificate.

6. The original claimant filed reply to the present application and opposed the prayers made in the present application, inter alia, contending that extension of time, if any, could be granted only with the consent of the original claimant and that the Court would have no power to entertain the prayer made in the present application.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as a matter of law, this Court does have power to entertain the prayer for extension of time. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Periyakkal and Ors. Vs. Smt. Dakshyani, (1983) 2 SCC 127, distinguished an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand v. Bansilal, AIR 1968 SC 86 to hold that when parties enter into a compromise and invite the court to make an order in terms of the compromise, the Court does retain jurisdiction to extend the timelines in appropriate cases. It is further submitted that the aforementioned judgment was followed by the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (Dead) Vs. Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath) and Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 1863.

8. It was submitted that once the Court retains power to extend timeline in such a manner, it is for the applicant to demonstrate that there are sufficient reasons for granting extension