BAPU SAHEB KATE Vs. MURLIDHAR
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Bapu Saheb Kate
Click here to view full judgement.
Chaturvedi, J. -
(1.)THIS appeal arises out of execution proceedings taken out by the decree -holder of a compromise -decree passed by the Court of District Judge, Gwalior. The agreement was to the effect that Rs. 44,000 should be paid to the decree holder, that the amount which has been deposited in the Court should be taken by the decree -holder and debited from the total sum decreed and that the judgment -debtor should pay the remaining sum within a period of two months.
(2.)ACCORDING to the terms of the decree the decree -holder received Rs. 29,791 and a sum of Rs. 15,800 is still due. According to the decree this decretal amount ought to have been paid within two months. In the lower Court the judgment -debtor filed an application stating therein that he had not been able to manage as was contemplated at the time of compromise and so he was not in a position to pay the amount and, therefore, requested the Court for extension of the time. This application was rejected by the learned District Judge. Against this order the judgment -debtor has preferred this appeal and has filed an application that the sale of the property ordered by the District Judge should be stayed pending the decision in this appeal.
Arguments have been heard by me on the appeal as well as on the application for stay order because the question involved in the appeal as well as in the application of stay order is the same viz., whether the executing Court can enlarge or extend the period for payment of the decretal amount prescribed in a compromise decree.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the appellant places his reliance on the wording of S. 148, Civil P.C. But note 3 to this section in Chitaley's Commentary is quite clear that the Allahabad, Lahore and Patna High Courts and the Oudh Judicial Commissioner's Court have held that the time fixed by the consent decree cannot be extended.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.