D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) ON a suit for redemption of mortgage titled Lahori Ram etc. v. Jagat Ram and others, Shri K. S. Kauldhar, Sub Judge 1st Class. Hoshiarpur, passed a preliminary decree by way of compromise on 5 -10 -1972. A direction was contained therein that Lahori Ram and others, the Plaintiff -Respondents decree holders shall deposit Rs. 3850/ in the names of the Defendants Appellants judgment debtors upto 1 -6 -1973. It is the admitted fact that Shri K. S. Kauldhar did not hold Court from 11 -6 -1973 to 15 -6 -1973 as he was leave. From 16 -6 -1973 the civil Courts were closed for summer vacation. The Respondents, therefore, moved an application in the Court of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, for permission to deposit the amount and on that application an order was made that the amount should be deposited on the date of reopening of Courts which was so deposited on 2 -7 -1973. The Respondents thereon moved an application for a final decree in their favour and against Harbans Lal and others, the judgment -debtors. In reply to the application, Harbans Lal and others filed objections to the effect that in accordance with the preliminary decree the amount was required to be deposited by 15 -6 -1973 and since the deposit had been made after the stipulated date and the Respondents had never applied for extension of time for making the deposit nor such extension was ever granted by the Court which had passed the preliminary decree, they had not complied with the terms of the preliminary decree and therefore the application for final decree ought to be dismissed. These objections were, however, turned down by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Hoshiarpur. who passed a final decree. In favour of the Respondents vide judgment and decree dated 17 -2 -1975 Harbans Lal. one of the Defendant judgment debtors, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, which was however dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15 -3 -1977. He has, thus preferred the instant regular second appeal in this Court.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant has raised two -fold contention. His first contention was that neither there was any application for extension of time nor was there any specific order extending the time for the deposit of the amount stipulated in the preliminary decree after 15 -6 -1973 The deposit made by the Respondents, therefore, did not fulfil the conditions of the preliminary decree. The final decree passed in their favour was therefore not lawful. His second contention is that the time was stipulated in the preliminary decree by consent of the parties and the Courts below had no power to extend the same. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find no force in either of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. It is not in dispute that the preliminary decree was passed by the Court of Shri K. S. Kauldhar, Sub Judge 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, on 5 -10 -1972. The amount stipulated therein was to be deposited by 15 -6 -1973 in that very court. It is not disputed that from 11 -6 -1973 to 15 -6 -1973 shri K. S Kauldhar, the then learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, was on leave and was not holding Court From 16 -6 -1973 onwards civil Courts were closed for summer vacation. In this situation, the only course left with the Respondent was to approach the learned Distract Judge for allowing the deposit of the amount stipulated in the decree, which they actually adopted. The amount was admittedly deposited on 2 -7 -1973, when the Court of Shri K. S Kauldhar Sub -Judge re opened. In this manner, it cannot be said that the Respondents are in any way responsible for the delay caused in depositing the amount. The contention that since no application was moved for extension of time nor extension of time was no granted also loses force. A perusal of Order XXXIV, Rule 7(2), Code of Civil Procedure, shows that the Court is vested with the power, on a good cause shown and by the terms fixed by it, from time to time, at any time before the passing of a final decree, to extend the time fixed for payment of the amount found or declared due in a preliminary decree in a redemption suit. The Court below, have rightly held that the deposit was properly accepted and the time stipulated in the preliminary decree thus stood extended
(3.) THE second contention of the learned Counsel has also no force. The learned District Judge has rightly relied on Sukhan Lal v. Johri Mal, (1971) 73 P. L. R. 143., wherein it was held that the Court has the power to extend the time fixed for depositing the redemption money and it it immaterial whether order of redemption was passed with the consent of the parties or not;