The Court has jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of decretal dues under a compromise in a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, even after the expiry of the time fixed, if the order disposing of the application does not contain a clause to the effect that in the event of non-payment, the sale will stand confirmed and the Court still retains seisin of the matter.

Narayan, J.

1. This application is directed against an order of the Munsif 1st Court, Patna, to the effect that a miscellaneous case filed by the judgment-debtors for setting aside an execution sale should be deemed to be pending. The case was a case instituted under the provisions of Rule 90 of Order 21, Civil P. C., and the judgment-debtors of the execution case were the applicants. The decree-holder and the auction-purchaser were impleaded as opposite parties nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The case proceeded to a trial, but on 21-7-1951 a petition of compromise was filed by the judgment-debtors and the auction-purchaser, the terms whereof were as follows: (1) That the execution sale dated 15-7-1950 will be set aside on the judgment-debtors paying Rs. 80.00 to the auction-purchaser Bhagwat Saran Singh by 26-7-51. (2) That the decree-holder having been paid the amount of the decree out of the sale proceeds the balance of the amount deposited by the auction-purchaser and lying in deposit will be withdrawn by the auction-purchaser. The prayer in this petition was that the auction sale dated 15-7-1950 "be set aside in terms of the petition of compromise on payment as stated above." The order passed by the learned Munsif on this petition was that the miscellaneous case be disposed of in terms thereof, On 27-7-19(sic) the applicants of the miscellaneous case under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., filed a petition that the delay in the payment be condoned and a chalan be issued for depositing the amount mentioned in the compromise petition. The learned Munsif ordered the chalan to be issued, and the money was deposited by the judgment-debtors before 31-7-1951. Thereafter, the auction-purchaser filed an objection with regard to the deposits made by the applicants, and his objection came to be heard on 18-8-51. The learned Munsif. after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that because time was not of the essence of the contract, the delay in depositing the amount could not be regarded as material. After this order had been passed the judgment-debtors filed a petition praying that the compromise, that had been recorded be ignored and that the case be tried from the stage at which it had been left. This petition was disposed of on 28-8-1951, and the learned Munsif held that the miscellaneous case as well as the sale stood and that the parties were relegated to their old position. It is against this order that the auction-purchaser has moved this Court in Civil Revision .

2. The substance of the contention raised (sic) me by the auction-purchaser is that the (sic) the learned Munsif dated 21-7-1951 to (sic) effect that the miscellaneous case be dis-(sic) of in terms of the compromise petition (sic) final judgment within the meaning of (sic) Rule 3, Civil P. C. and that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to modify or alter this order save as provided by Sec.152 or on review, in other words, the auction-purchaser regards the order dated 21-7-51 as the final judgment in the miscellaneous case under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., and therefore contends that the subsequent order of the learned Munsif direct-ing that the parties be relegated to their old position is void and without jurisdiction. In (sic) opinion, the contention urged on behalf of (sic) auction-purchaser is not fit to succeed. No (sic) the jurisdiction of a Court in regard to (sic) case begins from the date when it is filed, and it terminates on the date on which the judgment is pronounced and signed, and the Court has no jurisdiction to make any alteration in its judgment after it has signed it. There are also cases which lay down that where a sale is directed to be set aside on the decretal amount being paid within a certain time, the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time unless proper steps for a review are taken by the party aggrieved. As an instance, I may refer to a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in -- Mohammad Asraf Ali V/s. Nabija