Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (4.22 seconds)Section 148 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
In Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India 6, the Supreme Court
held that the 30-day cap introduced in Section 148 of CPC does not curtail
the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of CPC to extend time
where justice so demands. The Court clarified that the rigid application of
Section 148 of CPC would lead to absurd results and that procedural law
5
2025: DHC : 7172
6
2005 6 SCC 344
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:10.09.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
10:54:02 CS(OS) 1159/2014 Page 10 of 22
KUMAR KAURAV
cannot be construed to promote injustice. It emphasized that even
peremptory procedural orders are not absolute and Courts retain discretion
to extend time in exceptional circumstances, such as events beyond a party's
control. Accordingly, Section 148 of CPC must be read harmoniously with
Section 151 of CPC to permit extensions beyond 30 days, provided
sufficient cause is shown, so as to secure the ends of justice and prevent
abuse of process. Paragraphs Nos. 41 to 43 of the decision reads as under:-
Mahanth Ram Das vs Ganga Das on 7 February, 1961
In Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das [(1961) 3 SCR 763 : AIR 1961
SC 882] this Court considered a case where an order was passed by
the Court that if the court fee was not paid by a particular day, the suit
shall stand dismissed. It was a self-operating order leading to dismissal
of the suit. The party's application filed under Sections 148 and 151 of
the Code for extension of time was dismissed. Allowing the appeal, it
was observed: (SCR pp. 767-68)
"How undesirable it is to fix time peremptorily for a future happening
which leaves the Court powerless to deal with events that might arise in
between, it is not necessary to decide in this appeal. These orders turn
out often enough to be inexpedient. Such procedural orders, though
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:10.09.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
10:54:02 CS(OS) 1159/2014 Page 11 of 22
KUMAR KAURAV
peremptory (conditional decrees apart) are, in essence, in terrorem, so
that dilatory litigants might put themselves in order and avoid delay.
They do not, however, completely estop a court from taking note of
events and circumstances which happen within the time fixed. For
example, it cannot be said that, if the appellant had started with the full
money ordered to be paid and came well in time but was set upon and
robbed by thieves on the day previous, he could not ask for extension of
time, or that the Court was powerless to extend it. Such orders are not
like the law of the Medes and the Persians."
Manu Markande And Anr vs State & Ors on 1 November, 2018
27. Relying on the aforesaid decision, this Court in Manu Markande &
Anr. v. State & Ors7, clarified that while Section 148 of CPC places an
ostensible cap of 30 days on extension of time, Courts are not precluded
from granting extensions beyond this limit, particularly in relation to taking
amended pleadings on record. In context of Order VI Rule 18 of CPC, the
Court observed that Section 148 of CPC, being a residuary provision,
permits enlargement of time where no specific provision exists, but is
ordinarily restricted to 30 days. Conversely, Order VI Rule 18 of CPC,
which specifically governs the filing of amended pleadings, does not
prescribe an absolute upper limit, thereby enabling Courts to extend time
beyond the initial 14 days if sufficient cause is demonstrated.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajendra Prasad Gupta vs Prakash Chandra Mishra & Ors on 12 January, 2011
33. Moreover, it is also to bear in mind that rules of procedure are
handmaids of justice, not its mistress. The Supreme Court in Rajendra
Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra 8 held that Section 151 of CPC
has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is permitted to the Court
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:10.09.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
10:54:02 CS(OS) 1159/2014 Page 15 of 22
KUMAR KAURAV
for doing justice, unless expressly prohibited, and not that every procedure is
prohibited unless expressly permitted. This principle has stood the test of
time in matters of procedure and has been developed as a thumb rule. The
principle is well established that when CPC is silent regarding a procedural
aspect, the inherent power of the Court can come to its aid to act ex debito
justitiae for doing real and substantial justice between the parties.