DARSHAN GIR Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question with regard to the scope of the powers which the Court could exercise under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for extension of time to deposit amounts beyond the granted period by a decree, falls for consideration of the Court in the revision.

(2.) DARSHAN Gir had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 6.12.1994 praying for the execution of a registered sale deed in retation to the immovable property and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 37,700/- against the defendant Smt. Surjit Kaur. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998 decreed the suit for specific performance. While decreeing the suit the learned trial Court worded the decree as under :-

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh v. Gurdial Singh and another, 1997(1) PLR 73 : 1996(3) RCR(Civil) 679 (P&H) and Jasa Bai and others v. Udey Singh, 1993(2) PLR 502 : 1993(3) RRR 64 (P&H), contended that the decree passed by the learned trial Court was conditional and the decree holder having violated the condition, by not depositing the amount within two months from the date of the judgment, and as such the default of the decree-holder has rendered the decree ineffective and unexecutable. The default wipes out the decree in favour of the decree-holder. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for both the parties ultimately conceded that the gist of the above enunciated principles of law would grant power to the Court to enlarge the time for compliance of the terms and conditions of the decree provided sufficient cause in shown. In the case of Mohinder Singh (supra) the Court was concerned with a case where no consequence of default had been spelled out in the judgment.