Back
1929 Supreme(Nagpur) 73
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Subhedar
JIWA UMAR KACHHI – Appellant
Versus
GULABCHAND – Respondent
Decided on : 24-04-1929
In foreclosure proceedings, mere tender of money is not enough for extension of time. Good cause for extension must be alleged and proved, and in the absence of such cause, the courts have no discretion to condone the delay.
Headnote:
Foreclosure - Adjustment - The court held that mere tender of money is not enough for extension of time in foreclosure proceedings. Good cause for extension must be alleged and proved, and in the absence of such cause, the courts have no discretion to condone the delay. The alleged cause for nonpayment, i.e., the adjustment, was held not proved, and therefore, the courts had no power to grant extension.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment-debtor pleaded an adjustment in proceedings for final decree for foreclosure, but the court held the plea not proved and made the decree final despite a belated prayer for extension of time.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the plea for extension of time, stating that mere tender of money is not enough and good cause for extension must be alleged and proved. The alleged cause for nonpayment, i.e., the adjustment, was held not proved by both lower courts, and therefore they had no power to grant extension.
Issues: The issues involved the plea for extension of time in foreclosure proceedings and the alleged adjustment by the judgment-debtor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of good cause for extension of time and proof of the alleged cause for nonpayment, the courts have no discretion to condone the delay in foreclosure proceedings.
Final Decision: The application for extension of time was dismissed without notice to the other side.
Subhedar, A J C—In proceedings for final decree for foreclosure the applicant judgment-debtor pleaded an adjustment but the Court of the first instance held the plea not proved and made the decree final in spite of a belated prayer for extension of time. Against this order an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, Akola, but was rejected. The applicant, therefore, comes up to this Court in revision.
2. It is argued here that the lower Courts were in error in not accepting the money which the applicant was willing to deposit just before the case was closed. But mere tender of money is not enough. Unless good cause for extension is alleged and proved the Courts have got no discretion left to condone the delay. The alleged cause for nonpayment at the proper time, viz., the adjustment was held not proved by both the lower Courts and therefore they had no power to grant extension: Motilal v. Ujiar Singh, 1928 AIR(PC) 137.
3. The application fails and is dismissed without notice to the other side.
Final Result : Dismissed
