SMT. PERIYAKKAL & OTHERS versus SMT. DAKSHYANI

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 02-03-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. . 
_) 
~-
' -
r 
467 
A 
SMT. PBRIYAKKAL & OTHERS 
v . 
SMT. DAKSHYANI 
March 2, 1983 
[R. $.PATHAK AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ,J 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure-Order XX!, Rule 90-Scope of-PartitJ entered 
C 
into a compromise with leave of Court that appellants should pay in Court be/on 
the stipulated datt a sum of money in full and final settlement of the decree-
rf.ppellants failed to deposit the money in terms of compromise-Ma" an appUca~ 
tionfor extension of time-High Court, if competent to utend time. 
The respondent's suit for the recovery of money from the fi,.t appellant's 
husband was decreed and in the execution of the decree certain property of the 
appellant was brought to sale. 
The decree-bolder purchased that prooerty. 
The appellant's husband having died in the meanwhile bis legal representatives 
filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the C.P.C. for setting aside 
the sale. That application was· dismissed by the executing court. On the 
appellant's appeal, the sale was set aside. At the stage of second appeal 
filed by the respondent the parties entered into a compromise with the leave of 
the court which after granting leave made an order in terms of the compromise. 
Under a term of the compromise, the appellants agreed to deposit, and the res-
pondent agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 60,000/- · in full and fl.Dal settlement 
of the decree. It was also stated that if the deposit was not made on or before 
the stipulated date, the sale was to stand confirmed and the second appeal of the 
respondent was to stand. Having found it difficult to deposit the money in 
terms of the compromise, the appellants filed an application-under Ss. 148 ·and 
151 Of tho C.P.C. praying that the time for depositing the money in terms or 
the compromise be extended. The H;igh Court disf!]issed this application on 
the ground that the Court couJd not extend time where time had been stipu-
lated by tho parties in the compromise arrived at between them. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf-Of the apP.llanlll that 
where a compromise bad been made the order of the Court, it was open to the 
Court to extend the time under s. 148 C.P.C. 
Allowing the appeal and remanding 
the case to the High Court to 
dispose of the execution second appeal afrosh in accordance-with the law. 
D 
B 
F 
HELD : As there was no statutory compulsion to dismiss tho application 
H 
under Order XX!, Rule 90, C.P.C, in the absence of an agreement between the 
parties, tbe C9urt would have decided the appeal arising out 9f the application 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
... 
:. 
468 
, 
SUPREM'B COURT REPORTS 
J1983J 2 s.c.a. 
on the merits. The parties in tbe instant case however entered into a compro-
mise and invited the court to make an order in terms of the compromise, which 
the Court did. The time for deposit stipulated by the pajies became the timo )... 
allowed by the Court and this gave the Court the jurisdiction to extend time in 
appropriate cases. Time would not be extended ordinarily, nor for the mere 
asking but would be granted in rare cases to prevent manifest injustice. Where 
the contract of the parties has merged in the order of the Court the Court's 
freedom to act to further the ends of justice would not stand curtailed. The 
High Court was in error in thinking that they bad no power to extend time. 
[472 B-F] 
Hukumchand v. Bansi/al and Ors., A.I.R. 1968 SC 86, held inappli-
-)..-·-
cable. 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 3527 Of 
1979. 
Appeal by Special leave from tbe Judgment and Order dated 
the 15th January, 1979 of the Karnataka High Court in 
Executive 
Second Appeal No. 89 of 1974, 
Dr. Y. S. Chitale, 
R. B. 
Datar 
and Miss Madhu Moo/ 
Chandani for the Appellants. 
S. C. Javali, Ranjit Kumar and B. P. Singh for the Respon-
dent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The respondent Dakshyani sued to 
r~ovef a sum of Rs. 7,324.86 paise from Narayana Swami, hus-
band of the first appellant and father of the rest of the appellants. 
.\.,. 
~ 
... 
---: 
The suit was 
decreed with costs and, in execution of the decree, 
certain property situated in Bangalore City was brought to sale. The 
·._,_ 
decree·holder purchased the property at the execution sale held on 
~ 
August 19, 1969, for a sum of Rs. 28,000, Narayana Swanii having 
died in the meanwhile, his legal representatives, the present· appel-
lants, filed an application under the provisions of Order 21 
Rule 
9

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