Skip to content


Shivashankar Dayal Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Appln. No. 294 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1973Raj139; 1971(4)WLN585
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 148 and 151 - Order 20, Rule 14
AppellantShivashankar Dayal
RespondentSmt. Shanti Devi
Appellant Advocate S.T. Porwal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate L.R. Mehta and; Gopal Raj Singhvi, Advs.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredIn Ramdas v. Ganga Das
Excerpt:
civil procedure code sections 148, 151 and order 20 rule 14 - time fixed under decree for payment--whether court can extend it; time fixed under the decree could not be extended under section 148 c.p.c. or under section 161 c.p.c. - - namdev, air 1954 sc 50 failure to pay the purchase-price within the time fixed by the decree would result in the suit standing dismissed even in this case......of the plaintiffs in a suit for pre-emption against an order of the trial court refusing to extend time fixed by it under the decree for payment of the purchase price on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to do so. 2. the decree in the suit was passed in the following terms:-- (1) that the defendant no. 1 smt. shanti devi would reconvey the suit property to the plaintiffs on payment of rupees 5,761/- to them; (2) that the plaintiffs are directed to pay this amount within a month from the date of the decree, i. e. 20-11-69; (3) that the costs of the reconveyance would be borne by the plaintiffs; and (4) that the costs of the suit would be payable by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiffs. 3. order 20, rule 14 (1) c. p. c. runs as follows:-- '14. decree in pre-emption suit.-- (1).....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jagat Narayan, C.J.

1. This is a revision application by one of the plaintiffs in a suit for pre-emption against an order of the trial Court refusing to extend time fixed by it under the decree for payment of the purchase price on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to do so.

2. The decree in the suit was passed in the following terms:--

(1) that the defendant No. 1 Smt. Shanti Devi would reconvey the suit property to the plaintiffs on payment of Rupees 5,761/- to them;

(2) that the plaintiffs are directed to pay this amount within a month from the date of the decree, i. e. 20-11-69;

(3) that the costs of the reconveyance would be borne by the plaintiffs; and

(4) that the costs of the suit would be payable by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs.

3. Order 20, Rule 14 (1) C. P. C. runs as follows:--

'14. Decree in pre-emption suit.-- (1) Where the Court decrees a claim to preemption in respect of a particular sale of property and the purchase-money has not been paid into Court, the decree shall-

(a) specify a day on or before which the purchase-money shall be so paid, and

(b) direct that on payment into Court of such purchase-money, together with the costs (if any) decreed against the plaintiff, on or before the day referred to in Clause (a), the defendant shall deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff, whose title thereto shall be deemed to have accrued from the date of such payment, but that if the purchase-money and the costs (if any) are not so paid, the suit shall be dismissed with costs.'

The decree in the present case was not passed exactly in terms of Order 20, Rule 14, C. P. C., but as was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Naguba Appa v. Namdev, AIR 1954 SC 50 failure to pay the purchase-price within the time fixed by the decree would result in the suit standing dismissed even in this case. It was thus a conditional decree.

4. The trial Court held that it became functus-officio after passing the decree and had no jurisdiction to extend the time for payment fixed under it. In doing so it relied on the decision of this Court in Dr. Ram Kumar v. Mahadeo Lal, ILR (1961) 11 Raj 1060 = (AIR 1962 Raj 54). It was held in that case that time fixed under the decree could not be extended under Section 148, C. P. C. or under Section 151, C. P. C.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in Abu Mahomed v. Mukut Pertap, AIR 1916 Pat 268. It was held in that case that the time fixed for payment under a pre-emption decree could be extended by the Court passing decree under Section 148, C. P. C. For reasons given in Dr. Ram Kumar's case. I am unable to subscribe to the view taken in the Patna case. In Ramdas v. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882, it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the decision in thatcase would not apply to conditional decrees.

6. I am accordingly of the opinion that the decree of the Court below is correct and dismiss the revision application. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of it.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //