D.V. PAUL versus MANISHA LALWANI

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 425 · Decided: 18-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 10 S.C.R. 425 
D.V. PAUL 
V. 
MANISHA LALWANI 
(Civil Appeal Nos.6734-6735 of 2010) 
AUGUST 18, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s. 148 - Power of court to 
extend time -
Scope of -
Tenant ordered to deposit 
A 
B 
Rs. 10, 000 in trial court for payment to the landlord failing 
C 
which eviction to ensue - Tenant, instead of depositing in court 
sent demand draft of the said amount to the landlord -
Application by landlord for eviction decree on the ground that 
the tenant did not strictly comply with the order of court -
Realising the mistake, the tenant offered to deposit the 
D 
amount afresh in the court - Extension of time for deposit -
Grant of - Held: Where alternative mode is not accepted as 
a satisfactory solution by the parties, the only remedy left to 
the party required to do an act, is to do so, in accordance with 
the terms of the decree and in case there is a delay in the 
E 
doing of the act, seek extension of time on grounds that would 
justify such extension - Tenant offered to deposit the amount 
afresh which shows that there was no deliberate inaction on 
his part so as to di sen title him to the relief of extension of time 
- In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, it is a fit case 
F 
where extension of time for making of the deposit by the trial 
court ought to 
be 
granted -
Madhya 
Pradesh 
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Limitation. 
The respondent-landlord filed an eviction suit against 
the appellant-tenant which was dismissed. On appeal, the 
G 
High Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of 
Rs.10,000 as compensation in the trial court within 4 
months, for payment to the respondent, failing which the 
tenant was to face eviction decree. The appellant instead 
425 
H 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A of depositing the amount in the trial court, got a demand 
draft made in the name of the respondent and dispatched 
it to him by registered post. The demand draft was sent 
after expiry of time fixed by the High Court. 
·, 
8 
The respondent filed an application before the trial 
court praying for a decree stating that the deposit of 
Rs.10,000 as directed by the High Court was not made 
by the appellant. Realizing his mistake, the appellant filed 
an application praying for extension of time for deposit 
C of an amount of Rs.10,000. He also filed an application 
under Section 151, CPC before the High Court setting out 
the details regarding the steps taken by him in 
compliance with the order of the High Court. The High 
Court directed the executing court to hold an inquiry into 
the matter. The said order was challenged by the 
D respondent before the Supreme Court. The Supreme 
Court held that since no deposit was made, the executing 
court could proceed with the execution of decree. 
While disposing of Section 151 application, the High 
E Court held that since the executing court was directed to 
proceed with the execution case, no further action was 
necessary in the said application. The High Court 
however did not consider the prayer made by the 
appellant for extension of time for making the deposit. 
F The matter came up before the executing court. It held 
that there was no need for any inquiry. The High Court 
upheld the order of executing court. Aggrieved, the 
tenant filed the instant appeals. 
G 
H 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Although an inquiry into the making of the 
payment by the appellant-tenant directly to the 
respondent-landlord was held to be unnecessary, the 
question whether the appellant was entitled to extension 
D.V. PAUL v. MANISHA LALWANI 
427 
of time for making of the deposit continued to remain 
relevant and was required to be answered by the High 
Court on its own merits. The High Court failed to do so 
while disposing of Section 151 application, which was not 
correct. The trial court was, however, correct in holding 
that it could not extend time for making the deposit as the 
same was stipulated by the High Court. Even the 
executing court could not go behind the decree. Holding 
A 
B 
of an inquiry into the question whether the appellant had 
made the payment directly to the respondent was also 
correctly found to be unnecessary by the trial court, no c 
matter the Supreme Court had left conducting of such an 
inquiry open to the executing court. The fact was that the 
appellant did not make the deposit in the manner 
required in the decree. Whether or no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.