IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
Badi Govindan S/o.kunhappa – Appellant
Versus
Dayaroth Arikothan Rohini, D/o. Kunhambu – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 18870 OF 2005
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Writ Petition for mandamus - The petitioner sought restoration of an application for executing a decree of specific performance, which was dismissed due to a misunderstanding of the calculation of the three-month period for deposit - The court clarified that the period of months is to be calculated according to the British calendar as per Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. (Paras 5 - 10 )
(B) Legal interpretation of 'month' - The court referenced precedents to establish that a month refers to a calendar month rather than a fixed number of days, affirming that the period ends on the corresponding date in the succeeding month. (Paras 6 - 9 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was directed to deposit a balance consideration of Rs.50,000/- within three months of a decree dated 09.12.2003. The deposit was made on 08.03.2004, but the application was dismissed as late. (Paras 3 - 4 )
Findings of Court:
The court found that the deposit was made within the stipulated time and reinstated the application for execution of the decree. (Paras 10 )
Issues: The main issue was the proper calculation of the three-month period for deposit in accordance with legal definitions of 'month'. (Paras 5 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the learned Sub Judge erred in dismissing the application due to a misinterpretation of the time period, affirming that a month is calculated based on the British calendar. (Paras 10 )
Result: Writ Petition allowed; application restored.
JUDGMENT :
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.8/2002 on the files of the Sub Court, Thalassery, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Sub Judge, Thalassery to restore I.A.No.1966 of 2004 and after verification of the date of deposit with the original challan receipt or conducting such other enquiry from the Bank, pass orders implementing Ext.P1 decree;
and
(b) pass such other orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that decree for specific performance of a contract of sale was granted on 09.12.2003 with direction to the petitioner to deposit the balance consideration within a period of three months. Thereafter on 08.03.2004 the petitioner deposited the amount and filed Ext.P2 I.A.No.1966/2004 to appoint a court official to execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property. But the said petition was dismissed on the finding that deposit was not made within time.
4. Even though `order for lodgement delivered’ without legible date showing deposit of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner was produced before this Court, in order to clarify as to whether any amount was deposited as directed, a report from the learned Sub Judge, Thalassery, has been called for. Accordingly, it was reported by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Thalassery, that Rs.50,000/- was deposited on 08.03.2004 though the said amount was lapsed.
5. In this matter, in fact, suit was decreed on 09.12.2003 with direction to the plaintiff to deposit the balance consideration to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) within three months from the date of the decree. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount on 08.03.2004. However, the learned Principal Sub Judge dismissed the application holding that the deposit was not effected within time. Going by the order, it could be noticed that the learned Sub Judge misunderstood the calculation of three months period. Therefore, the legal question arises for consideration in this context is how `a month’ or `months’ to be calculated to find out its expiry? Under Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, `month’ shall mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar.
6. In Bibi Salma Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3596, the Apex Court dealt with provisions of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961, which provided that benefits under the said act could be availed of if an application is made within three months of the date of registration of the documents of transfer. Posing the question as to what was meant by the word ‘month’, Supreme Court held that British calendar would mean Gregorian calendar. It was held that when the period prescribed is a calendar month running from any arbitrary date, the period of one month would expire upon the day in the succeeding month corresponding to the date upon which the period starts.
7. The Apex Court in State of H. P. Vs. M/s. Himachal Techno Engineers, 2010 AIR SCW 5088 considered the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. While Section 34 relates to application for setting aside arbitral award, sub-section (3) thereof prescribes the period of limitation for such application which is three months. In that context, the Apex Court examined the meaning of the word ‘month’ and held that a month does not refer to a period of 30 days but refers to the actual period of a calendar month.
8. It was clarified that if the month is April, June, September or November, the period comprising the month will be 30 days; if the month is January, March, May, July, August, October or December, the month will comprise of 31 days; but if the month is February, the period will
The period for deposit under a decree is calculated based on calendar months, not a fixed number of days, as per the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Courts possess discretion under CPC and the Specific Relief Act to extend deadlines for contract performance, reflecting on claimants' willingness and circumstances surrounding payment delays.
(1) Recession of contract – Moving of application under Section 28 of S.R. Act for rescinding contract for non-compliance of condition is not mandatory rather optional and immaterial – Court is not p....
The Enforcement of a decree depends on timely deposit of balance consideration; the Execution Court retains discretion to grant extensions based on case facts.
Point of Law : Provisions of section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in light of the provisions of Order XX Rule, 12A of the CPC, and it was held that the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12A mand....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.