BINDRU Vs. KIKRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- The following two questions, which, in the opinion of a learned single Judge of this court are important questions of law, have been referred to Full Bench for consideration :

(2.) The aforesaid two questions have arisen in a revision petition which was filed by the petitioner against the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sub-Judge) Jammu whereby the application of the petitioner under S.148, C.P.C. was dismissed. The petitioner seems to have filed a suit to enforce right of prior purchase in which he had obtained a decree on the basis of right of prior purchase and the decree had directed him to deposit the consideration amount within the specified time and on his failure to do so, he prayed for extension of time after the period for deposit had expired. The court below refused to extend the time. Against that order a revision was preferred and out of the revision, the above two questions have been formulated for consideration.

(3.) The learned single Judge has noticed some conflict between two authorities of this court, i.e. Krishan Dutt v. Mohinder Nath, AIR 1975 J and K 18 and Hakim Akbar Ali v. Haji Abdul Wahab, AIR 1977 J and K 36. In Krishan Dutt's case Division Bench has held that time cannot be extended where the petitioner applies for extension of time after the expiry of time originally fixed by the court. In Hakim Akbar Ali's case a learned single Judge of this court has taken a contrary view and has held that court has power to extend time which was originally fixed even after the expiry of that time.