Calcutta High Court
Girish Chandra Das vs Sm. Annadamoni W/O Nannilal Mondal And ... on 10 January, 1939
Equivalent citations: AIR1939CAL309
ORDER Edgley, J.
1. This rule is not opposed. It appears that on 28th February 1938, the learned Munsif of Diamond Harbour directed that an application to set aside a sale under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act, should be allowed, provided the applicant deposited in Court the amount recoverable from her in execution of the decree within seven days from the date of the order. In default the application would stand rejected. The applicant failed to comply with the conditions mentioned in the order dated 28th February 1938; and it appears from the record that, on 7th March 1938, she filed a petition asking for an extension of time to make the deposit. The petition was granted on 8th March 1938.
2. In my opinion the order dated 28th February 1938, was a final order of the Court, and this order should not have been modified except in the manner provided by Order 20, Rule 3, Civil P.C., A similar point was decided by me in Civil Revn. Case No. 1136 of 1938 in which I held that in a case such as this, Section 148, Civil P.C., has no application. This being the case, I am of opinion that the learned Munsif acted without jurisdiction in allowing a further extension of time for making the requisite deposit by his order dated 8th March 1938.J It follows that the subsequent order dated 14th March 1938 must also be regarded as having been made without jurisdiction. This order is therefore set aside and the rule is made absolute. The order of the learned Munsif dated 28th February 1938 will be restored.