Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16681
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
J. SAROJA – Appellant
Versus
THE SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER (LA) – Respondent
C.R.P.No.1021 of 2025
Mr.D.Muthukumar for M/s.Paul and Paul & J.Hudson Samuel Partners, Mr.P.Gurunathan Additional Government Pleader (C.S)
The court has inherent power to extend time limits set by itself under Sections 148 and 151 of the CPC to prevent failure of justice, even beyond the 30-day limit.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 148 and 151 - Extension of time - The petitioner sought to extend time for payment of costs in a restoration application after a prior dismissal for default - The court emphasized that inherent powers exist to extend time beyond 30 days if justified by sufficient cause - The trial court's return of the petition as not maintainable was set aside. (Paras 3, 7, 9)
(B) Judicial Discretion - Courts have the discretion to extend time limits set by themselves to prevent failure of justice, especially when circumstances beyond a party's control arise. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition after the trial court dismissed their application for failing to pay costs on time, which was a condition for restoring a prior petition dismissed for default. The petitioner argued that the court has the power to extend time under Sections 148 and 151 of the CPC.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in returning the petition as not maintainable and emphasized the need to allow the petitioner to present their case to prevent injustice.
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court had the authority to extend time beyond 30 days and the implications of the amendment to Section 148 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the amendment to Section 148 does not strip the court of its inherent powers to extend time for compliance with its orders, especially to prevent failure of justice.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to direct the Principal District Court, Salem, to number the application filed for extension of time and restoration of I.A.SR.No.9221 of 2024 in Arb.O.P.No.102 of 2018 and decide the same on merits in accordance with law.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-
2.1. The petitioner had filed Arb.O.P.No.102 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Salem and since, the petitioner did not appear before the Court, the petition came to be dismissed for default on 01.10.2021.
2.2. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition in I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking to condone the delay of 381 days in filing the petition to restore the dismissal order passed in Arb.O.P.No.102 of 2018. The learned Principal District Judge, Salem, on 25.04.2024, had allowed the petition on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to the respondent on or before 11.06.2024 and also held that failing which, the petition shall stand dismissed and the matter was posted on 12.06.2024. On 12.06.2024, since the petitioner had not complied with the condition, the learned Judge had dismissed the petition.
2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition in I.A.SR.No.9221 of 2024 under Sections 148 & 151 CPC seeking to grant extension of time for payment of Rs.1000/- to the respondents (Rs.500 to each respondent). However, the petition was returned on 06.08.2024 stating that “As per the Authority reported in 2008 CTC Vol No.I page No.47, how this petition is maintainable”.
2.4. The petitioner had represented the same on 20.08.2024 along with the citation reported in 2018 (2) MWN (civil) 419 of MHC and 2008 (1) CTC 47. However, the petition had been once again returned on 30.09.2024 stating that “Previous order of return dated 06.08.2024 holds good”. Challenging the order of return, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amendment made in Section 148 of CPC affects the power of the court to enlarge time that may have been fixed or granted by the court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the code. He further submitted that Section 151 of CPC gives power to the court to grant extension beyond maximum of 30 days, if the act could not be performed within 30 days for reasons beyond the control of the party. He also submitted that it is not a case where the time for doing an act has been prescribed under the provisions of the Limitation Act which cannot be extended either under or and it is only a case where the time is fixed or granted by the court for performance of an act prescribed or allowed by the court. In such circumstances, the court does not become functus officio and it has got powers to extend the time granted and there is no necessity for filing an appeal. He further submitted that the non grant of extension beyond 30 days would amount of failure of justice and the learned Judge had not properly appreciate the judgment and had returned the papers and it is not proper. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order of return.
4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Further, since the order of return is between the petitioner and the court, this Court is of the opinion that notice is not necessary to be given to the respondents.
6. The petitioner has filed a petition in I.A.SR.No.9221 of 2024 under Section 148 and 151 of CPC seeking to extend the time for complying with the conditional order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023, whereas, the learned Judge had returned the papers stating that the petition is not maintainable.
7. It is useful to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344.
