Naru Koli Vs. Chima Bhosle - Court Judgment
|Judge||Charles Sargent, C.J. and; Nanabhai Haridas, J.|
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 257a - agreement extending time of payment under decree without sanction of court--application for such sanction after the decree was barred. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind..........of this decree is not stated in the reference. it was subsequently, on appeal, modified by the special judge, substituting rs. 91-2-6 for rs. 30-7-0. there was also another modification made which it is unnecessary to notice. this was done on the 23rd september, 1882. thereafter on the 3rd october, 1885, the parties entered into an agreement, whereby (inter alia) the time to pay the above debt was extended to five years from the date of it. this agreement was not made with the sanction either of the court which had passed the original decree or of the special judge. on the 18th february, 1888, after execution of the decree had become barred under the law of limitation, the parties applied to the former court (subordinate judge) to sanction the above agreement of 1885.2. the.....
1. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the purposes of this reference, are these : In original Suit No. 308 of 1881 a decree was made for the redemption of certain lands on payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of Rs. 30-7-0 and costs within seven months. The date of this decree is not stated in the reference. It was subsequently, on appeal, modified by the Special Judge, substituting Rs. 91-2-6 for Rs. 30-7-0. There was also another modification made which it is unnecessary to notice. This was done on the 23rd September, 1882. Thereafter on the 3rd October, 1885, the parties entered into an agreement, whereby (inter alia) the time to pay the above debt was extended to five years from the date of it. This agreement was not made with the sanction either of the Court which had passed the original decree or of the Special Judge. On the 18th February, 1888, after execution of the decree had become barred under the law of limitation, the parties applied to the former Court (Subordinate Judge) to sanction the above agreement of 1885.
2. The Subordinate Judge asks us whether that agreement requires the sanction contemplated in Section 257A of the Civil Procedure Code. We are of opinion that it does, and that it is void, for want of such, sanction so far as it relates to the judgment-debt, and that the sanction applied for cannot now be given--Yashvantrao v. Keval Khupchand Printed Judgments for 1887 p. 323.
3. We wish to add that we do not think a Subordinate Judge is justified under Section 617 of the Civil Procedure Code, in referring to the High Court a point on which a Division Bench has already once expressed its opinion. That opinion is sufficient authority for him to act upon, whatever his own opinion may be.