Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code applies only to procedural orders and not to conditional decrees. Therefore, the court does not have the power to extend time for payment under a conditional decree under Section 148, even if there is sufficient cause for the delay.

RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J.

1. Briefly the facs are that Ram Saran, the father of the plaintiff, died on 8-11-1966. The defendant got the mutation of the land sanctioned in his favour on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by Ram Saran in his favour. The plaintiff challenging the execution and validity of the will, filed a suit for possession which was contested by the defendant. He controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and alleged that the will was duly executed by Ram Saran deceased in his favour in lieu of services.

2. The trial Court held that Ram Saran executed a valid will in favour of the defendant. Consequently it dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff the first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the same. In second appeal to this Court a compromise was effected between the parties according to which it was agreed that an amount of Rupees 15,000.00 would be paid by the respondent to the appellant in instalments and in case he failed to pay any of the instalments, the suit of the plaintiff would stand decreed. The matter was listed be fore me and I, in accordance with the compromise, passed the following judgment:

"A compromise has been effected between the parties according to which it has been agreed that the respondent shall pay Rs. 15,000.00 to the appellant by Bank drafts against receipts in three equal instalments of Rs. 5,000.00 each. The first instalment is to be paid on or before 15-10-1982, the second on or before 15th June, 1983, and the third on or before 15-10-1983. In case the respondent fails to pay either of the said instalments, the appeal shall stand accepted and the suit of the plaintiff decreed. However, if the respondent pays all the instalments as stated above, the appeal shall stand dismissed. The compromise, Exhibit C. I., be deemed to be part of the judgment and decree. The parties are left to bear their own costs."

The respondent failed to pay the last instalment in time. Consequently he moved application under Sec.148 read with an 151, Civil S.P.C. for extension of time making in payment of the third instalment. It is stated in the application that the applicant, who was 80 years of age, fell seriously ill on 5-10-1983 and remained on the verge of death during that period. As soon as he started moving he arranged for the amount of Rs. 5,000.00 and sent the money vide Bank draft dt. 25-10-1983 to Smt. Parmeshwari Devi plaintiff who refused to accept the same. It is alleged that the delay in tendering the third and last instalment was due to illness of the applicant which was beyond his control. It is further alleged that the paddy crop was late due to late sowing in the village and, therefore, it became difficult for him to make arrangement for the balance amount. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff who controverted his allegations. She also denied the allegation that the applicant suffered from a serious ailment. Consequently it is prayed that the application be dismissed.

3. The main question for determination is that if a conditional decree for possession on payment of certain amount within a specified period is passed in favour of a party and it fails to pay the amount within that time, whether the Court is entitled to extend time for payment under Sec.148, Civil P. C., for sufficient cause? The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court has the power to extend time under Sec.148 of the Code. In support of his contention he made reference to Mahanth Ram Das V/s. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882, Smt. Periyakkal V/s. Smt, Dakshyani, AIR 1983 SC 428, Jadabendra Nath Mishra V/s. Smt. Manorama Debya, AIR 1970 Cal 199, Gobardhan Singh V/s. Barsati, AIR 1972 All 246 (FB) and New Bangesree Bastralaya V/s. Ramanlal Phurma Karta, AIR 1976 Cal 335.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and given my thoughtful consideration to their arguments. Section 148 says