Back
1929 Supreme(Mad) 216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V Rao
Suppiah Mooppanar
Versus
Mallappa Chetty
Decided On : 16 July, 1929
The court has the power to extend the period under Section 43, not limited to the debtor alone, and may do so on the application of anybody interested, as long as sufficient cause is shown.
Headnote:
Section 43 - Extension of Time - The court has the power to extend the period under Section 43, not merely at the instance of the debtor but on the application of anybody interested, as long as sufficient cause is shown.
Fact of the Case:
The creditor applied for enlargement of time under Section 43, and the Official Receiver agreed to an order being made. The alienee, the appellant, was not given notice of the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court overruled the objection that only the debtor can apply for extension under Section 43. It also noted that while it is desirable for notice to go to the alienee, in this case, the appellant failed to show any resulting prejudice. The court directed the lower Court to expedite its hearing due to the appellant's complaint of hardship caused by delay.
Issues: Debtor's application for extension, notice to the alienee, delay in the disposal of the proceeding to annul the alienation
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the power to extend the period under Section 43, not limited to the debtor alone, and may do so on the application of anybody interested, as long as sufficient cause is shown. Notice to the alienee is desirable, but lack of notice may not result in setting aside the order if no prejudice is shown. The court directed expedited hearing due to the appellant's complaint of hardship caused by delay.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Venkatasubba Rao, J.
1. The first point taken by Mr. Venkatarama Aiyar is that under Section 43, it is the debtor alone that can apply for extension. But as has been pointed out in Jetaji Peraji Firm v. T. Krishnayya A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 278, Section 43 is controlled by Section 27:
It is equally clear that the Court has the power to extend the period and it may be so done, not merely at the instance of the debtor but on the application of anybody interested. The section merely requires that sufficient causa shall be shown, but it does not say that the debtor alone may apply for extension or shall show sufficient cause.
2. In this case, it was a creditor that applied for enlargement of time and the Official Receiver agreed to an order being made. This objection is therefore overruled.
3. The second point raised by Mr. Venkatarama Aiyar is that his client, the alienee, was not given notice of the application. We may point out that it is desirable that in such cases notice should go to the alienee. In this particular case, however, the appellant has not been able to show that any prejudice has resulted and we are therefore unable to set aside the order of the District Judge.
4. The appellant complains that the delay in the disposal of the proceeding to annul the alienation causes him great hardship. We direct the lower Court to expedite its hearing. The appeal is dismissed with costs a jsw
