K.S. Muthu Vs. T. Govindarajulu & Anr.
EmailAppeal: (Arising out of Special leave petition (C) No. 2628/2000)
Petitioner: K.S. Muthu
Respondent: T. Govindarajulu & Anr.
Apeal: (Arising out of Special leave petition (C) No. 2628/2000)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 04, 2000
Head Note:
SPECIIC PERFORMANCE
Specific Relief Act, 1963
Sections 10, 16 – Civil suit for specific performance – Decree of suit – Direction to Appellant to deposit balance sale consideration in Court within one week – Due to intervening holidays Appellant seeking extension of time for making payment – Trial court declining extension – High Court also declining to interfere with trial court’s order. Held when the Appellant was not in a position to perform the direction of Court due to holidays, the Court cannot expect him to perform what was impossible. Courts below erred in not granting the extension of time.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. A suit for specific performance was decreed on August 30,1997 and the Appellant was granted one week’s, time to deposit the balance of sale consideration in the Court and the last date for depositing the said amount was September 6, 1997. It is stated that September 5, 1997 was declared to be a holiday and September 6/7, 1997 being Saturday and Sunday were again general holidays and in these circumstances the Appellant made an appli-cation to permit him to deposit the amount on September 8, 1997. The trial court declined to grant permission to deposit the amount on September 8, 1997 by stating that the Appellant ought not to have waited till the last date; that if really he had money in his hands, he would have deposited within the four days and not having done so he cannot seek indulgence of the Court now. On that basis the trial court rejected the application for extension of time.
3. A Revision petition was filed but the High Court declined to interfere with the order made by the trial court and rejected the said petition, hence this appeal.
4. On February 25, 2000 when this matter came up for hearing before us, we directed that the Appellant shall deposit the said amount within a period of one week from the date of the order. The said amount was deposited on March 2, 2000. In the circum-stances when the Appellant was not in a position to perform the direction given by the Court in view of the holiday, the Court cannot expect the Appellant to perform what is impossible. Further, when a period of time has been granted to a party to fulfil a condition, until expiration of that period, it cannot be said as to why a particular act has not been done before that time. The order passed in such matters are made in terrorem to fulfil conditions. In the circumstance we think it is appro-priate to set aside the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the trial court and direct that the amount deposited by the Appellant be treated to have been made in pursuance of the decree made by the trial court originally. On other aspects, we express-no opinion. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. A suit for specific performance was decreed on August 30,1997 and the Appellant was granted one week’s, time to deposit the balance of sale consideration in the Court and the last date for depositing the said amount was September 6, 1997. It is stated that September 5, 1997 was declared to be a holiday and September 6/7, 1997 being Saturday and Sunday were again general holidays and in these circumstances the Appellant made an appli-cation to permit him to deposit the amount on September 8, 1997. The trial court declined to grant permission to deposit the amount on September 8, 1997 by stating that the Appellant ought not to have waited till the last date; that if really he had money in his hands, he would have deposited within the four days and not having done so he cannot seek indulgence of the Court now. On that basis the trial court rejected the application for extension of time.
3. A Revision petition was filed but the High Court declined to interfere with the order made by the trial court and rejected the said petition, hence this appeal.
4. On February 25, 2000 when this matter came up for hearing before us, we directed that the Appellant shall deposit the said amount within a period of one week from the date of the order. The said amount was deposited on March 2, 2000. In the circum-stances when the Appellant was not in a position to perform the direction given by the Court in view of the holiday, the Court cannot expect the Appellant to perform what is impossible. Further, when a period of time has been granted to a party to fulfil a condition, until expiration of that period, it cannot be said as to why a particular act has not been done before that time. The order passed in such matters are made in terrorem to fulfil conditions. In the circumstance we think it is appro-priate to set aside the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the trial court and direct that the amount deposited by the Appellant be treated to have been made in pursuance of the decree made by the trial court originally. On other aspects, we express-no opinion. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
