LexMAHANTH RAM DAS versus GANGA DAS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUP.REME COURT REPORTS 763 Mutawalli, while the dispute remained undecided. r96r This point has no force whatever. - The question which seemed to have largely engaged HaMzrat Syedd sh.ah t . . h H. h C 1 h h th d 1 as Im hi Ali a tent10n m t e 1g ourt, name y, w et er e e e- Al Quad•ri gation was only of powers or also of duties of the v. Board, was not argued before us, though it formed the Commissioner of subject of considerable discussion in the statements of Wakfs. the case. It is without substance. Where powers and West Bengal duties are interconnected and it is not possible to Hidayatullah f· separate one from the other in such wise that powers may be delegated while· duties are retained and vice versa, the delegation of powers takes with i\ the duties. The proposition hardly needs authority ; but if one were necessary, reference may be made to Mungoni v. Attorney-General of Northern Rhodesia (1). In our opinion, the appeal has no force whatever. The appellant chose the extraordinary course of drag- ging the respondents twice to the High Court and again to this Court merely to challenge an order of temporary duration, while · the main controversy remained outstanding for years and could have been decided by now. · The appeal fails, and is dismissed. The appellant shall pay the costs of the respondents, who have entered appearance. Appeal dismissed. MAHANTH RAM DAS v. GANGA DAS. (J. L. KAPUR, M. HrnAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Court Jee-Appeal to stand dismissed if court Jee not paid within time granted-Extension of time, if can be granted-Code of Civil Procedure, r908 (V of r908). ss. r48, I49, I5I, 0. 47, r. r. The High Court passed a peremptory order that "the appeal will stand dismissed " if a certain amount of court fee was not paid within the time granted by the court. The appellant being unable to find money made an application for extension of time before the expiry of the time granted, Md offering to make a partial payment asked for further time, The application was (r) [1060) A.C. 336 g8 I96I February 7, 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961 1961 heard after the expiry of the time and was dismissed on the ground that the appeal had already "stood dismissed " owing to Mahanth Ram Das non-payment within the time allowed. The appellant's applica- v. tions under s. r5r and 0. 47, r. r of the Code of Civil Procedure Ganga Das were also dismissed on the same ground although the court expressed sympathy for the appellant. On appeal with a certifi- cate of High Court : Held, that such procedural orders though peremptory (condi- tional decrees apart) are, in essence, in terrorem, so that dilatory litigants might put themselves in order and avoid delay but they do not completely estop a court from taking note of events and circumstances which happen within the time fixed and time should have been extended in the circumstances of the case and the court was not powerless to deal with events happening after the peremptory order. Lachmi Narain Marwari v. Balmakund Marwari (r925) I.L.R. 4 Pat. 6r (P.C.). referred to. Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in terms, allows extension of time, even if the original period fixed expired and s. r49 is equally liberal; the High Court had ample power to apply those sections and to exercise its inherent powers under s. r5r in order to do justice to a litigant for whom it had expressed considerable sympathy. Latham v. f ohnson [r9r3] r K.B. 39$, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 432 of 1957. Appeal from the judgment and order dated Septem- ber 27, 1955, of the Patna High Court in Civil Revision No. 24 of 1954. R. C. Prasad, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. 1961. February 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatul/ah J. HrnAYATULLAII, J.-The appellant who was plaintiff in a title suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge II, Gaya, has appealed against the dismissal of his·suit by the High Court at Patna, with a certificate from that Court. In the suit he had asked for a declaration that he was nominated Mahant of Moghal Juan Sangat by his Guru, Mahanth Guiab Das, by a registered deed dated October 21, 1944, and that he had thus the right to manage the Sangat and other off-shoots thereof. His suit was dismissed by the trial Judge on May 31, 1947. He then appealed to the High Court at Patna, and on November
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.