Yeshoda & Anr. Vs. K.Nagarajan
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.18603 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.96 of the Karnataka High Court in I.A.No.3 in R.F.A.No.225 of 1984)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.96 of the Karnataka High Court in I.A.No.3 in R.F.A.No.225 of 1984)
Petitioner: Yeshoda & Anr.
Respondent: K.Nagarajan
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.18603 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.96 of the Karnataka High Court in I.A.No.3 in R.F.A.No.225 of 1984)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.96 of the Karnataka High Court in I.A.No.3 in R.F.A.No.225 of 1984)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & S.B.MAJMUDAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 25, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. P.Mahale, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Head Note:
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Section 148 read with Specific Relief Act – Section 28- Default in compliance of conditional decree of deposit of amount – Under Section 148 CPC the Court has power to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of Court from time to time – Held that as amount was deposited within three months from date of dismis-sal of S.L.P. the Court had correctly exercised its discretion and so prayer for rescission of decree was rejected – Dismissed.
Section 148 read with Specific Relief Act – Section 28- Default in compliance of conditional decree of deposit of amount – Under Section 148 CPC the Court has power to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of Court from time to time – Held that as amount was deposited within three months from date of dismis-sal of S.L.P. the Court had correctly exercised its discretion and so prayer for rescission of decree was rejected – Dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This Special Leave Petition arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated June 19, 1996 in I.A. No.3 in RFA No.225/84. The admitted position is that in the Suit for specific performance the High Court has agreed with the suggestion of the respondent to pay a further sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. The High Court has extended three months’ time from April 21, 1994 for deposit of the amount. Special Leave Petition filed in this Court was dismissed on September 23, 1994 and within three months thereafter on January 17, 1995 the amount came to be deposited. An application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was filed to rescind the decree on the ground that the respondent had committed default in compliance of the conditional decree of the deposit of the amount. The respondent had filed an application for extension of time. The application for rescission of the decree was dismissed and the application for extension of time was allowed. Thus this special leave petition.
2. It is contended by Mr. Mahale, learned counsel for the petitioner, that after the expiry of the time prescribed by the court, the petitioner has a right to seek rescission of the decree for specific performance for non-compliance. The Court, therefore, has no power to enlarge the time. We find no force in the contention. Section 148, CPC gives power to the court to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of the court from time to time. Under those circumstances, the court has correctly exercised the direction since the amount came to be deposit-ed within three months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition.
3. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. This Special Leave Petition arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated June 19, 1996 in I.A. No.3 in RFA No.225/84. The admitted position is that in the Suit for specific performance the High Court has agreed with the suggestion of the respondent to pay a further sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. The High Court has extended three months’ time from April 21, 1994 for deposit of the amount. Special Leave Petition filed in this Court was dismissed on September 23, 1994 and within three months thereafter on January 17, 1995 the amount came to be deposited. An application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was filed to rescind the decree on the ground that the respondent had committed default in compliance of the conditional decree of the deposit of the amount. The respondent had filed an application for extension of time. The application for rescission of the decree was dismissed and the application for extension of time was allowed. Thus this special leave petition.
2. It is contended by Mr. Mahale, learned counsel for the petitioner, that after the expiry of the time prescribed by the court, the petitioner has a right to seek rescission of the decree for specific performance for non-compliance. The Court, therefore, has no power to enlarge the time. We find no force in the contention. Section 148, CPC gives power to the court to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of the court from time to time. Under those circumstances, the court has correctly exercised the direction since the amount came to be deposit-ed within three months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition.
3. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
