Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Dijabar And Anr. Etc. vs Sulabha And Ors. on 1 July, 1985 cites

Mahanth Ram Das vs Ganga Das on 7 February, 1961

8. The next question for consideration is whether the Order dated 13-2-1981 of the lower appellate Court extending the time for depositing the costs by the opposite parties was vitiated by error of jurisdiction. On this point the contention on behalf of the petitioners is that since the order dated 2-1-1981 expressly stated that in case the opposite parties fail to pay the counsel for the petitioners a sum of Rs. 110/- by 15th January, 1981, the under Section 5, Limitation Act would stand dismissed and consequently the appeal would be barred by limitation and hence liable to be dismissed, the Court became functus officio after passing the order and had no jurisdiction to entertain any application for extension of time. The contention on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, is that even if it is held that the order dated 2nd January, 1981 is peremptory in nature the Court still retains its jurisdiction to extend the time granted for compliance with the order, on being satisfied that there is good cause for the failure of the party concerned to comply with the order within the time. Reliance is placed on Section 148, Civil P. C. Though there was some controversy amongst the decisions of different High Courts regarding the nature of the orders in which the Court has the power to extend the period for compliance and in others in which it does not retain such power, the matter has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882 where a peremptory order for payment of deficit Court-fee passed by the appellate Court while disposing of the appeal came up for consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 181 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1