Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s Armor's Developers Pvt. Ltd. and its director, challenged an order dated 4-12-2015 passed by the trial court in Special Civil Suit No.706/2003. The trial court had permitted the respondents (original plaintiffs) to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.96,000/- within one month, extending the time originally granted in the decree for specific performance. The decree, dated 6-1-2012, directed the respondents to deposit the balance consideration within two months and the petitioners to execute the sale deed within two months, with a default clause that if the respondents failed to deposit within time, the suit would stand dismissed. The respondents filed an application under Section 148 CPC on 19-4-2012 seeking enlargement of time, stating that their counsel had not informed them about the decree and they came to know about it only on 18-4-2012. The trial court allowed the application, extending time by one month. The petitioners argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to extend time after the expiry of the original period, especially since the decree contained a default clause. The High Court held that Section 148 CPC confers discretion on the court to enlarge time for doing an act prescribed or allowed by the court, even after the expiry of the original period, if sufficient cause is shown and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The court noted that the default clause does not oust the court's power under Section 148 CPC. The High Court found that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously, considering the respondents' explanation that they were not informed by their counsel and that the amount was deposited within the extended time. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Extension of Time - Section 148 CPC - Discretion of Court - The trial court has discretion under Section 148 CPC to enlarge the time for deposit of balance consideration even after the expiry of the original period, if sufficient cause is shown and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The court can extend time even if the decree contains a default clause that the suit shall stand dismissed on failure to deposit within time. (Paras 5-10)
B) Specific Performance - Deposit of Balance Consideration - Default Clause - The default clause in a decree for specific performance that the suit shall stand dismissed on failure to deposit balance consideration within the stipulated time does not oust the court's power under Section 148 CPC to extend time. The court can extend time if the decree-holder shows sufficient cause for the delay and the judgment-debtor is not prejudiced. (Paras 7-10)
C) Civil Procedure - Section 148 CPC - Nature of Power - The power under Section 148 CPC is discretionary and can be exercised even after the expiry of the period originally fixed, as the section does not contain any prohibition against extension after expiry. The court must consider the facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court has jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to extend the time for deposit of balance consideration after the expiry of the period stipulated in the decree for specific performance, especially when the decree contained a default clause that the suit would stand dismissed on failure to deposit within time.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 4-12-2015 which extended the time for deposit of balance consideration by one month. The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction under Section 148 CPC to enlarge time even after the expiry of the original period, and the discretion was exercised judiciously.
Law Points
- Section 148 CPC confers discretion on court to enlarge time for doing an act prescribed or allowed by the court
- even after expiry of the original period
- if sufficient cause is shown and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The court can extend time even if the order imposing time limit contains a default clause that the suit shall stand dismissed on failure to deposit within time.
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 187
Writ Petition No.6716 of 2015
Shri Anjan De with Shri Apurva De for petitioners; Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Radhika Bajaj for respondents
M/s Armor's Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Anand S/o Narayanrao Khobragade
Smt. Asha W/o Rajendra Paigwar and Smt. Sunita w/o Subhash Paigwar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the trial court's order extending time for deposit of balance consideration in a decree for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the trial court's order dated 4-12-2015 which allowed the respondents to deposit the balance consideration within one month.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the trial court had no jurisdiction to extend time after the expiry of the original period stipulated in the decree, especially when the decree contained a default clause that the suit would stand dismissed on failure to deposit within time.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance on 6-1-2012, directing the respondents to deposit balance consideration of Rs.96,000/- within two months and the petitioners to execute the sale deed within two months, with a default clause that the suit would stand dismissed if the respondents failed to deposit within time. The respondents filed an application under Section 148 CPC on 19-4-2012 seeking extension of time, which was allowed by the trial court on 4-12-2015.
Issues
Whether the trial court has jurisdiction under Section 148 CPC to extend the time for deposit of balance consideration after the expiry of the period stipulated in the decree for specific performance, especially when the decree contained a default clause that the suit would stand dismissed on failure to deposit within time.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to extend time after the expiry of the original period, as the decree contained a default clause that the suit would stand dismissed on failure to deposit within time. They relied on the principle that once the time fixed by the court expires, the court becomes functus officio.
Respondents argued that Section 148 CPC confers discretion on the court to enlarge time even after the expiry of the original period, and the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously considering the sufficient cause shown by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 148 CPC confers discretion on the court to enlarge time for doing an act prescribed or allowed by the court, even after the expiry of the original period, if sufficient cause is shown and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The default clause in the decree that the suit shall stand dismissed on failure to deposit within time does not oust the court's power under Section 148 CPC. The court can extend time if the decree-holder shows sufficient cause for the delay and the judgment-debtor is not prejudiced.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers discretion on the court to enlarge time for doing an act prescribed or allowed by the court, even after the expiry of the original period, if sufficient cause is shown and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party.
The default clause in the decree that the suit shall stand dismissed on failure to deposit within time does not oust the court's power under Section 148 CPC.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Special Civil Suit No.706/2003 for specific performance of an agreement dated 19-1-1997. The trial court decreed the suit on 6-1-2012, directing the respondents to deposit balance consideration of Rs.96,000/- within two months and the petitioners to execute the sale deed within two months, with a default clause that the suit would stand dismissed if the respondents failed to deposit within time. On 19-4-2012, the respondents filed an application under Section 148 CPC seeking enlargement of time. The trial court allowed the application on 4-12-2015, extending time by one month. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.6716 of 2015 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 11-8-2016.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 148
