1996 Supreme(Cal) 43
High Court Of Calcutta
NRIPENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA
UMA BASU - Appellant
Versus
SWAPAN CHATTERJEE - Respondent
C. O. 64 Of 1996
Decided On : 02/02/1996
BHASWATI PAL, JAGJIBON GHOSH, Saptangshu Basu
The power to extend time for deposit of the consideration money in a suit for specific performance of a contract is reserved only for the court which has passed the decree.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - DEPOSIT OF CONSIDERATION MONEY - EXTENSION OF TIME - JURISDICTION - COURT WHICH PASSED THE DECREE - S. 28 (1) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - S. 148 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the trial court allowed the plaintiff to deposit the consideration money in a fixed deposit account, subject to renewal with the development of the suit, instead of depositing it with the Solicitor Firm as per the compromise decree. The defendant challenged this order in revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the power to extend time for deposit of the consideration money was reserved only for the court which had passed the decree, and not for any other court.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to deposit the consideration money in a fixed deposit account, subject to renewal with the development of the suit, instead of depositing it with the Solicitor Firm as per the compromise decree? 2. Whether the plaintiff could have approached the court which passed the decree for extension of time to deposit the consideration money.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to hold that the power to extend time for deposit of the consideration money was reserved only for the court which had passed the decree, and not for any other court. 2. The court observed that the plaintiff could have approached the court which passed the decree for extension of time to deposit the consideration money.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.
( 1 ) HEARD the submission of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Saptangshu Basu and the learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Jagjibon Ghosh appearing with the learned Advocate Miss Bhaswati Pal. Considered the materials on record.
( 2 ) BY this revision under S. 115 of the C. P. C. the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, has challenged order dt. 29-11-1995 passed in Title Suit No. 123 of 1993 by the Assistant District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, 24-Paraganas (South), whereby the learned Assistant District Judge, allowed the petition of the plaintiff made under S. 151 of the C. P. C. without any cost and gave liberty to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for a period of one year in the fixed deposit account subject to renewal with the development of the suit in any branch of the State Bank of India, situate within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. The fact that has given rise to this order impugned is that earlier a suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract in the court of the Assistant District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, 24-Paraganas (South) being Title Suit No. 103/91 against the husband of the present petitioner. The said suit ended in a compromise and a decree has been passed upon such compromise petition as has been agreed to and entered into by and between the parties in that suit. The petition of compromise was enclosed or annexed with letter 'a' and clause 3 of that petition runs to this effect that the plaintiff or his nominee will deposit the said sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- at a time or by instalment with M/s. Or, Digman and Co. 29-Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta-700001 within 7 days from the date of receipt of the sanction of the building plan by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation or within 12 months from the date thereof whichever is earlier. In any event, upon deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/plaintiff will have an exclusive right to sign, execute and register the deed of conveyance on behalf of defendant No. 1 in favour of his nominee or nominees. It will be apposite to mention here that the plaintiff in that suit is the plaintiff in that suit and the defendant is the present defendant. Paragraph 14 of that agreement of compromise also runs to this effect that if the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions contained in clause 3 of that agreement then the agreement for sale and purchase of the said premises shall automatically stand discharged after the period mentioned in clause 3 without any action whatsoever from and claim or demand against the plaintiff and the defendant. Admittedly, after the said compromise in Title Suit No. 103/91, the original defendant Shri Dopti Kumar Bose died and the estate came in the hand of his widow Smt. Uma Bose, who is the defendant in the present suit and has figured as defendant No. 1. The plaintiff, who is the opposite party No. 1 herein, by a subsequent suit being Title Suit No. 123/93 before the Assistant District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, 24-Paraganas (South), inter alia, prayed :-"a) a decree of declaration that the defend ant No. 1 is bound to admit, acknowledge and act in accordance with the decree dt. 6th July, 1992 and the terms of settlement annexed thereto in Title Suit No. 103 of 1991 3 of the 5th Court of Assistant District Judge at Alipore;b) A decree of declaration that the defendant No. 1 is to help and assist the plaintiff and his nominees by granting General Power of Attorney duly registered in terms of settlement granted by her husband and predecessor in interest of the suit property to free the same and to get sanctioned plans;c) A decree of declaration that the acts and things as are done or are being done or to be done in relation to the suit property by the plaintiff shall always be treated to be the acts deeds and things done by the defendants;d) A decree of declaration that the defendant is bound to adjust the sum o