Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the 3rd defend ant against the order of the District Munsif of Ranipet in C. M. P. 605 of 1931 in O.S. No. 12 of 1920, extending the time for payment of a sum of money, which according to the terms of the decree was to be paid, by plaintiffs within six months before recovering possession of the suit properties from the defendants. The District Munsif construed the decree to be one substantially in the nature of a redemption decree, and in the exercise of his discretion under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 of Order XXXIV, Civil Procedure Code, granted an extension of time. The amount has also been paid into court. The correctness of this order is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition. It is urged that the lower Court is wrong in construing (he decree as in 1 he nature of a redemption decree, and that it had no jurisdiction to extend the time fixed in the decree for payment. It is further argued by Mr. Rajah Ayyar for the petitioner, that the soundness of the decision in Idambu Parayan v. Pethu Reddy 54 Ind. Cas. 451 : 43 M 357 : 37 M L J 695 : 11 L W 25 : 27 M L T 216, on which the order of the lower Court rests is open to doubt, and that decision requires reconsideration.

6. If the decree passed can be reasonably treated as a decree directing the redemption of a mortgage and if for that purpose it fixes a period of time for payment of the money there is, in my opinion, no bar to the exercise of the discretionary power for extending such time, as provided in sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 of Order XXXIV, Civil Procedure Code. The decision of a Fench of this High Court in Idumbu Parayan v. Pethu Reddy 54 Ind. Cas. 451 : 43 M 357 : 37 M L J 695 : 11 L W 25 : 27 M L T 216, is distinctly in favour of the plaintiffs' contention. In that case, a decree for recovery of possession of certain properties from the alienees, on payment of a sum of money by a certain date, was passed, without any provision as to the consequence of non-payment. Such a decree was passed in a suit for partition. It was not a suit for' redemption of a mortgage, nor does it appear that the amount which the plaintiffs were directed to pay was for iedeeming any mortgage. Still, it was held, that the decree was in terms and in effect one for redemption, so that the court would have jurisdiction to extend the time for payment under Order XXXIV, Rule 7. For the purposes of the present case, it is not necessary to go so far as the learned Judges went in Idumbu Parayan v. Pethu Reddy (1). Where the payment of the amount within a certain time fixed as a condition for the recovery of the property, is one in respect of a mortgage, by way of redemption, (as in the present case), I fail to see why the court is not competent to extend the time under the aforesaid rule. There may be some force in the appellant's contention, if the liability for the payment of the amount imposed on the plaintiff does not arise out of a mortgage or has no connection at all with a mortgage. Our attention is drawn to two decisions of the Allahabad High Court, viz. Kandhaiya Singh v, Kundan 57 Ind. Cas. 16 : 42 A 639 : 2 U P L R (A) 197 : 18 A L J 826 and Nand Kunwar v. Sujan Singh (4). The decision in Idumbu Parayan v. Pethu Reddy 54 Ind. Cas. 451 : 43 M 357 : 37 M L J 695 : 11 L W 25 : 27 M L T 216, has been dissented from. The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court seem to hold that the court would have no jurisdiction to extend the time for payment under Order XXXIV, Civil Procedure Code, unless the suit wag expressly one for redemption of a mortgage, and the decree is also a redemption decree. This view is opposed to the decision of our High Court in Ranganatha J Mai v. Paripurnam 16 Ind. Cas. 217, already, referred to. In an earlier case of the Allahabad High Court Kalyan v. Sadho Lal 18 Ind. Cas. 14 : 35 A 116 : 11 A L J 62, a compound decree in plaintiffs' favour was passed, which was a decree for redemption coupled with a decree for sale, but the suit was not in form, a suit for redemption. It was however, held that the court had jurisdiction to extend the time fixed in the decree for redemption under Order XXXIV, Civil Procedure Code. This decision seems to have been approved in Nand Kunwar v. Sujan Singh 57 Ind. Cas. 1006 : 43 A 25 : 18 A L J 62. With respect, I should think, it would be too strict an interpretation of Rule 7 of Order XXXIV, Civil Procedure Code, to hold that the power to extend the time vested in the court cannot be exercised even if the decree is virtually one for redemption of a mortgage, unless the suit also is strictly in the form of a redemption suit.