Madras High Court
Sri Kala Traders vs Central Bank Of India on 18 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(2)CTC394
ORDER Raju, J.
1. The petitioner before this Court has filed an application in I.A.674 of 1991 in O.S.35/85 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur seeking for condonation of the delay of 17 days in filing an application I. A. 673/91 for setting aside the sale. The Court below has declined to condone the delay on the ground that no sufficient reasons have been shown to the satisfaction of the said Court.
2. I entertained a doubt as to the very maintainability of the application for such condonation and directed the learned counsel to verify in this regard, and ascertain the correct position of law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my notice the decision reported in "Mohan Lal v. Hari Prasad Yadav" (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 177. It has been held by the Supreme Court in unmistakable terms therein that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application for condonation of the delay beyond the period of 60 days prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act and that the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not attracted to such an application in view of the express exclusion contained therein. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also held that the exercise of the Court's discretion to enlarge time under Section 145 C.P.C. also cannot be invoked since the time in such cases has not been fixed by the Court and on the other hand the time stipulated was under the statute.
3. To overcome this difficulty faced by the above decision, the learned counsel contended on behalf of the petitioner that the application in question presented in this case was not under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but one under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the submission appears to be attractive, it cannot merit acceptance. No doubt, the inherent powers of Court under Section 151 C.P.C. is in addition to and complementary to the powers expressly conferred under the Code. But that power will not be exercised if when exercised will be inconsistent with, or comes into conflict with, any of the powers expressly or by necessary implication prohibited from the Court exercising. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, there is no scope for applying the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the case on hand to grant relief as prayed for.
4. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or patent error of law in the order of the Court below, warranting the interference of this Court. The revision, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.