NASIK MUNICIPAL CORP. versus M/S. R.M. BHANDARI & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 26-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 174 
NASIK MUNICIPAL CORP. 
v. 
M/S. R.M. BHANDARI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1856of2016) 
FEBRUARY 26, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI AND R. BANUMATHI, J.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 1./8 - Enlargement of time 
by court - On facts, appellant-Corporation sought restoration of 
C execution petition-Special Darkhast, which was allowed by the High 
Court subject to the appellant depositing Rs. 25,0001- as cost -
However, executing court rejected the application requesting the 
court to accept the cost of Rs.25,000/- and to restore Special 
Darkhast, on the ground that the time limit granted by the High 
Court was over and it had no power to extend the time granted by 
D the High Court - Thereajier, the appellant filed application u!s. 
1./8 seeking extension of time for depositing the cost of Rs. 25,0001 
- and the High Court dismissed the same - On appeal, held: In 
terms of s. 1./8, the court has discretion to extend the time, even if 
the time originally fixed or granted by the court has expired -
E 
F 
G 
H 
Enlargement of time should not exceed thirty days in total - If the 
act could not be performed within thirty days for the reasons beyond 
the control of the parties, the time beyond maximum thirty days can 
be extended u!s. 151 - High Court while declining to enlarge the 
time to deposit the cost neither took into consideration the sequence 
of dates and events stated by the corporation nor the explanation 
offered by the corporation for the delay in depositing the amount -
Time ought to be extended to deposit the cost - Appellant to deposit 
the cost of Rs.25, 0001- within the stipulated period and on the deposit, 
Special Darkhast would be restored- C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A plain reading of s.148 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 would show that when any period or time is 
granted by the court for doing any act, the court has the discretion 
from time to time to enlarge such period even if the time originally 
fixed or granted by the court has expired. Previously discretion 
was given to the court to enlarge the period fixed or granted by 
174 
NAS!K MUNICIPAL CORP. v. MIS. R.M. BHANDARI 
175 
the court for any act prescribed or allowed by the Code. The A 
C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999 puts a limit of thirty days on the 
enlargement of such period. The words "11ot exceedi11!( thirty r/([ys 
i11 tot([r' have been inserted with a view to curtail procedural delay 
caused by any party to the suit or proceeding. Enlargement of 
time, whether one-time or phased, cannot exceed thirty days. If 8 
the act could not be performed within thirty days for the reasons 
beyond the control of the parties, th_e time beyond maximum thirty 
days can be extended u/s. 151C.P.C.[Para11, 15) [179-F-G; 181-
E) 
1.2 The High Court declined to extend the time mainly on 
the ground that the SLP filed by the respondents was dismissed 
as withdrawn and that the respondents have lost their right to 
challenge the order passed by the Court in the Writ Petition. 
The High Court while declining to enlarge the time to deposit 
the cost neither took into consideration the sequence of dates 
and events stated by the appellant-corporation nor the explanation 
offered by the appellant-corporation for the delay in depositing 
the amount. This is not correct. [Para 12) [180-D-F) 
1.3 Coming to the finding of the High Court that the 
respondents have Jost their right to challenge the order passed 
by the High Court in the Writ Petition, it is true that SLP was 
dismissed by this Court on the ground that cost was not deposited 
by the appellant. But that was not of much significance. In the 
application before the High Court, what was important was that 
whether the appellant has made out a case for extension based 
on which time can be extended. From the sequence of events, 
the appellant explained the reasons for the delay in depositing 
the cost and the time ought to be extended to deposit the cost. 
[Para 161 [182-C-D] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1.4 While extension of time is granted to the appellant to 
deposit the cost, the respondents cannot be rendered. remediless 
and the respondents are to be given liberty to have their first 
G 
appeal restored by making necessary application before the first 
appellate court. [Para 171 [182-E-F] 
1.5 The impugned order is set aside. The appellant-
corporation would deposit the cost of Rs.25,000/- as directed by 
the High Court in Writ Petition 

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