Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In response, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the decree passed by the trial court on 27.11.2006 was conditional in nature and thus, prayer for extension of time cannot be granted.

On a consideration of the matter in issue, the trial court declined the prayer and concluded as thus:

"It is pertinent to mention here that section 148 of the provides for enlargement of time where any period is led on granted by the court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this code, the court may, in its direction, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. In the circumstances of the present case, wherein applicant is seeking enlargement of time, he has come up with a plea that he was not informed rightly by the clerk of his counsel about this time given by the court. However, in support of the application there is no such affidavit either of the applicant or of the clerk of the counsel. Mere averments in the applicant are not sufficient enough to believe in such a plea of the applicant.

Ex facie, the decree dated 27.11.2006 was conditional in nature and since the petitioner failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, his suit stood dismissed in terms of the said decree. This court, in Resham Singh and others v. Manmohan Singh Kent and others [CR-3271-1982, decided on 30.01.1985], reported as 1985(1) PLR 278, while considering the scope of extension of time under Section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure vis-à-vis the conditional decree, concluded as thus: