Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K.C. Reddy vs Batcha Vasudevarao Naidu on 6 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)ALD45, 1999(5)ALT574, 1999 A I H C 4540, (1999) 5 ANDHLD 45, (2000) 1 ICC 323, (1999) 5 ANDH LT 574
Author: Vaman Rao
Bench: Vaman Rao
ORDER
1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam dated 22-2-1999 passed in IA No.9 of 1999 in OS No. 19 of 1997 refusing to grant time for payment as stipulated in the decree passed in the suit.
2. During the course of hearing, it was conceded by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides that the decree of the trial Court was passed on the basis of compromise under which a part of the amount claimed in the suit was agreed to be paid by the defendant and accordingly the decree was passed on condition that the said payment of the part of the amount claimed would be within a particular time, namely, on or before 31-1-1999 and failing which the defendant shall be liable to pay the entire amount claimed in the suit.
3. Apparently, the petitioner herein failed to pay the amount within the time prescribed in the decree i.e., on or before 31-1-1999. It was under these circumstances, IA No.9 of 1999 was filed before the learned senior Judge for extension of time for payment of the decretal amount. The learned Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that it was a conditional decree and the Court cannot extend the time.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. V. Ramana Reddy, contends that the consequence of failure of the defendant to pay the amount before the prescribed date could at worst result in a liability on his part to pay interest on the said amount and he cannot claim the entire suit amount merely because of the failure to pay the amount under the decree before the prescribed date.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent, Sri M Rama Rao, contends that it is a conditional decree and on the failure of the defendant to abide by the conditions of payment before a particular date would result in the consequence as prescribed in the decree itself, namely, the liability to pay the entire amount claimed in the suit. There is some substance in his contention.
6. In the case of Madhu Mohan v. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad, , His Lordship B. Sudershan Reddy, J., held that where an instalment decree was passed under Section 148 of CPC at the request of the defendant on condition that if the defendant fails to pay in terms of the instalment decree, the plaintiff would be at liberty to recover the entire decretal amount and where the defendant failed to pay two monthly instalments within the stipulated time, the Court cannot extend time for payment of such instalments and the plaintiff can seek to recover the entire suit amount. It was held that the Court has no power to extend time in the case of a conditional decrees.
7. Thus, the dismissal of the petition by the learned senior Judge is perfectly justified on this ground. Further, it may be mentioned here that admittedly it was a decree passed on the basis of compromise which is in the nature of a contract in which the time was certainly the essence of the contract. It may be mentioned here that the defendant agreed to receive in satisfaction of the suit claim, a lesser amount only on the condition that the said amount will be paid on or before a particular date.
8. Obviously failure to pay the agreed amount on or before prescribed date would result in liability of the defendant to pay the entire suit amount as provided for in the decree passed by the Court on the basis of compromise. Taking any view of the matter, there are no merits in this revision petition.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.