The court has the authority to grant an extension of time for the deposit of a substantial amount, and the genuineness of the party's efforts and the value of the offered security can be considered in reaching such a decision.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)

I.A. 11922/2022 (u/S 151 of CPC seeking appropriate directions)

1. This is an application moved on behalf of the petitioners under Section 151 CPC seeking prayer for enlarging time for deposit of amount of Rs.43.50 crores as directed by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2022.

2. This court while disposing of the present petition vide order dated 26.07.2022 had directed the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.43,50,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Crores Fifty Lacs Only) with the Registrar General of this Court within three days. The status quo order granted by way of order dated 26.07.2022 was subject to the petitioners depositing the aforesaid amount within the time granted with the Registrar General of this Court.

3. By way of the present application the petitioners have submitted that they require some time to arrange the liquidated funds. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners are real estate companies enjoying impeccable reputation in the real estate market since 2004 and that they have sound financial condition. However, on account of unforeseen situations, viz. COVID-19 pandemic and other related factors, which have been beyond the control of the petitioners, an immediate amount of sum of Rs.43.50 crores in liquidated form is not readily available. Thus, it is submitted before this Court that the petitioners need some time to arrange the liquidated amount.

4. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are already in the process of arranging the said monies for compliance of order dated 26.07.2022 passed by this Court. However, since the amount directed to be deposited is a substantial amount, they need some time to arrange the liquidated amount. It is further submitted that in order to demonstrate their bona fides and their genuine zeal to comply with the directions of this Court, the petitioners may be permitted to deposit original title deeds for agricultural land measuring 12.9167 acres bearing Khata/Khatoni No. 20/20 consisting of Khasra Nos. 30/22/2(4- 5),33/2(4-12), 9(4-5), 10(4-12), 11(4-12), 12(3-18), 19(3-13), 20(4- 12), 21(4-12), 22(3-8), 38//1(4-12), 2(3-1), 9(2-13), 10(4-13), 39//5(4- 12), total admeasuring 62 Bigha 00, Biswa, situated in Village Budhanpur Mazra, District - North-West, Delhi.

5. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Valuation Report dated 19.05.2022 in which the said land has been valued at approximately Rs.53.96 crores. Further, reliance has been placed upon Section 148 of the CPC to contend that enlargement of time can be granted by the court in its discretion from time to time to enlarge such period, where any period is granted by this Court for doing any act.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the present application. It is contended that the petitioners have preferred no review or appeal against the order dated 26.07.2022, wherein directions have been made to the petitioners to deposit the requisite amount within three days. It is contended that in the garb of the present application, the petitioners are seeking a review of the order dated 26.07.2022, and as such the present application is not maintainable. It is, thus, contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record occasioning any review of the order dated 26.07.2022.

7. Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondents has referred to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in the petition, wherein they showed their readiness and willingness to make payment in terms of MoU dated 14.07.2021. However, the present application is a manifestation that the petitioners do not have money that is readily available. It is further the case of the respondents that the petitioners want to secure on the basis of land belonging to some third party, and not the petitioners. It is further the case of the respondents that Section 148 C