• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 148, 151 - Suit for specific performance - Decreed - Trial Court did not make an order as to the consequences which would ensue on failure of the decree-holder to deposit the balance sale  therefore decree is not a conditional one - Application  for seeking extension of time was filed by the respondent within a short span of 10 days of the time fixed for deposit with a justifiable explanation that he did not come to know about the condition in regard to deposit rendering him unable to comply with the direction within the stipulated  period - Once  the application filed by the respondent has been allowed, the same would relate back to the date of  application. (183) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 148 - Condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed by the court below subject to deposit of cost - On account of non-deposit of cost - The appeal was dismissed as time barred - Application for re-calling for non-compliance of the order seems to be justified - Order set aside - Time to deposit the amount - Extended. (180) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 148 - Court has ample power to enlarge time fixed for doing any act even if the time originally fixed or granted had expired - The power has been conferred to be exercised to meet the ends of justice - Even after amendment in Section 148 CPC, placing a limit of 30 days for extension of time, the Court still has power to extend the period beyond that if cause is made out - Even in the cases where the time has been stipulated in a conditional decree, the power of the Court to extend is not taken away - The crux is that where the Court has power to fix time and that power is not regulated by any statutory limits such as the Limitation Act, it has power to extend the same. (178) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 148 - In relation to compromise decree - Time fixed therein could not be extended by the Court by resort to Section 148 CPC Mangala Ghosh v. Rabindra Nath Hazra, A.I.R. 1987 Cal. 307 not correctly decided, Pioneer Engineering Co. v. D.H. Machine Tools, A.I.R. 1986 Delhi 165 relied.    (180) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 148 - Provision can be restored to only where the performance of an act is prescribed or allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - In the present case, the direction issued by the trial Judge was in exercise of grant of discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 calling upon the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount in the manner indicated with consequences of failure recorded in the judgment and the conditional decree - The arrangement was simply a court direction with no reference to the Code nor did the Code or its provisions allow or provide for it - Therefore, section 148 is of no avail to the petitioner.  (176) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 148 - Whether or not the court has the discretion to enlarge the time for doing any act prescribed by the Code or allowed by the Code under section 148  - High Court imposed the cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the appellant as a condition precedent for restoration of the execution petition -  Not deposited in time as per the order of the High Court  - High Court did not allow extention of time  -  In terms of Section 148 C.P.C. court has the discretion to extend the time - The words not exceeding thirty days in total have been inserted by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999 - If the act could not be performed within thirty days for the reasons beyond the control of the parties, the time beyond maximum thirty days can be extended under Section 151 C.P.C. - What was important was whether the appellant has made out a case for extension based on which time can be extended.  (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 373

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.