Punjab-Haryana High Court
Durga Prashad And Another vs Municipal Corporation Faridabad on 21 August, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6825 of 2011
Date of decision: August 21, 2012
Durga Prashad and another
.. Petitioners
Vs.
Municipal Corporation Faridabad
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepinder Ahlawat, Advocate for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J This petition has arisen out of the order dated 25.11.2008 declining the application under Sections 148, 151, 152 and 153 of CPC for extension of time to deposit the amount due against the allotment of the shop site No.1, measuring 10' x 24' situated at Pathwari Mandir, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
The factual background of the case is that the plaintiff- petitioners lacked in depositing the requisite installment with Municipal Corporation, Faridabad in respect of the aforesaid shop allotted to him in auction. Resultantly, the defendants neither delivered the possession nor issued allotment letter, rather wanted to cancel the allotment. The petitioners filed civil suit No.437 of 2005 challenging the order of cancellation of the plot and further directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the said plot to him. The Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad, vide judgment dated 25.11.2008 decreed the suit and issued direction to the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to accept the balance payment due against the petitioners along with interest @ 10% per annum and deliver possession of the shop in question to him with the condition that on failure to deposit the amount within on month, the petitioner's suit would be treated as dismissed.
The plaintiffs failed to deposit the required amount within time i.e. up to 25.12.2008 but moved an application on 16.3.2009 for extending Civil Revision No. 6825 of 2011 -2- the time on the ground that he was not in the knowledge of the judgment and decree and he came to know only on 16.3.2009 when he contacted his counsel. He was always ready and willing to deposit the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.4.00 lacs along with interest @ 10% per annum, therefore, he prayed for enlargement of time.
The said application was contested by the defendants/respondents and it was averred that since it was conditional decree, therefore, the time could not be enlarged. The trial court dismissed the application.
The question for determination in this case is; "if an order was passed by the court in its own power, not against any statute, then whether the court ordering such direction had the power to modify or extend the said direction?"
This proposition directly came in question before the Apex Court in case D.V. Paul vs. Manisha Lalwani (2010) 8 SCC 546 wherein it was observed as under :-
"32. It is not in the light of the above decisions open to the respondent to argue that a Court can fix time for the doing of an act like making of a deposit, in the instant case, but has no jurisdiction to extend the said period even when a case for such extension is clearly made out. The power to fix the time for doing of an act must in our opinion carry with it the power to extend such period, depending upon whether the party in default makes out a case to the satisfaction of the Court who has fixed the time. There is nothing in Section 148 of the CPC or in any other provisions of the code to suggest that such a power of extension of time cannot be exercised in a case like the one at hand. The argument that the power to extend time cannot be exercised where the act in question is stipulated in a conditional decree has not impressed us. We see no reason to draw a distinction depending on whether the prayer for extension is in regard to a conditional order or a conditional decree. The heart of the matter is that where the Court has the Civil Revision No. 6825 of 2011 -3- power to fix time and that power is not regulated by any statutory limits, it has, in appropriate cases, the power to extend the time fixed by it. It is common ground that neither the CPC nor the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act place any limitation on the power of the Court in case like the one in hand."
As regards the question whether the petitioner has been able to make out a sufficient ground for extending period, it may be observed that the suit was decreed on 25.11.2008. The court without giving any relaxation with regard to obtaining of the copy of the judgment directed the petitioner to deposit the amount within one month from that date i.e. by 25.12.2008. The plea set up by the petitioners is that he came to know about the passing of the judgment on 16.3.2009 whereupon he applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree which he received. The petitioners having come to know that their suit had been decreed, may not have been informed regarding the contents and time for depositing of the balance sale consideration. According to him, he was informed about the pronouncing of the judgment. Since the contents of the judgment were not in the knowledge of the petitioners, therefore, there are sufficient grounds for extending time to deposit the amount and they have always been ready and willing to make the payment. The copy of the judgment reveals that the plaintiffs were not present at the time of pronouncement of the judgment. The affidavits furnished by the plaintiffs indicate that they came to know only on 16.3.2009 about the judgment, therefore, he filed the application on 30.3.2009 for extension of time. The said affidavit has not been controverted by the respondents.
Under these circumstances and in the light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court, I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out the case for extension of time. The trial court has not taken note of the aforesaid judgment and other aspects of the case, as such, the impugned order has been rendered as perverse warranting interference by this Court.
Civil Revision No. 6825 of 2011 -4-Resultantly, this petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the petitioners are directed to deposit whole of the sale price of the site in dispute along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of deposit, within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the allotment made to the petitioner shall stand cancelled.
August 21, 2012 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge