- (1.) The challenge is made to an order no. 43 dated 3rd September, 2015 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah in Money Suit No. 17 of 2013, by which an application for extension of time to accept the security is rejected. The application for attachment before judgement was rejected by the Trial Court, which was assailed in C.O. 946 of 2015. The said revisional application was allowed directing the petitioner herein to furnish the security to the petitioner's claim within a fortnight from the date of the said order; in default, the right, title and interest of the opposite party no. 1 in the property mentioned in Schedule 'C' appended to the said application shall remain attached before the judgement.
(2.) The said order was subsequently modified on 16th June, 2015, as there was typographical errors in numerical numbers. The parent order, by which the Court allowed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was assailed before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19873 of 2015. The Supreme Court rejected the same on 24th July, 2015. Subsequently the petitioner approached the Trial Court for an order permitting him to furnish the security, which is rejected by the impugned order, as the Trial Court opined that it cannot extend the time fixed by the High Court in an earlier revisional application. The Trial Court was of the view that if the time is extended, it would amount to modifying the order of the High Court.
(3.) The petitioner further took out an application for modification of the order dated 15th May, 2015 passed in C.O. 946 of 2015 and prayed for extension of time to furnish the security. The said application is registered as CAN 9532 of 2015. Mr. Probal Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that immediately after the rejection of the Special Leave Petition his client has approached the Trial Court to furnish the security and the delay in doing so was because of exhausting the remedy provided under Article 136 of the Constitution. As indicated above, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 24th July, 2015, but the term deposit was made on 27th August, 2015 for a sum of Rs.18,61,000/-. The said term deposit is sought to be furnished as security in terms of the order dated 15th May, 2015 passed in C.O. 946 of 2015. At the very outset this Court must record that the decision of the Trial Court in not entertaining an application seeking extension of time cannot be interfered with. Since the application, being CAN 9532 of 2015 has been taken out for modification of the said order, this Court proposes to take both the revisional application as well as the said application together.;