On February 25, 2000 when this matter came up for hearing before us, we directed that the Appellant shall deposit the said amount within a period of one week from the date of the order. The said amount was deposited on March 2, 2000. In the circumstances when the Appellant was not in a position to perform the direction given by the Court in view of the holiday, the Court cannot expect the Appellant to perform what is impossible. Further, when a period of time has been granted to a party to fulfil a condition, until expiration of that period, it cannot be said as to why a particular act has not been done before that time. The order passed in such matters are made in terrorem to fulfil conditions. In the circumstance we think it is appropriate to set aside the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the trial court and direct that the amount deposited by the Appellant be treated to have been made in pursuance of the decree made by the trial court originally
2. A suit for specific performance was decreed on August 30,1997 and the Appellant was granted one week's, time to deposit the balance of sale consideration in the Court and the last date for depositing the said amount was September 6, 1997. It is stated that September 5, 1997 was declared to be a holiday and September 6/7, 1997 being Saturday and Sunday were again general holidays and in these circumstances the Appellant made an application to permit him to deposit the amount on September 8, 1997. The trial court declined to grant permission to deposit the amount on September 8, 1997 by stating that the Appellant ought not to have waited till the last date; that if really he had money in his hands, he would have deposited within the four days and not having done so he cannot seek indulgence of the Court now. On that basis the trial court rejected the application for extension of time.
3. A Revision petition was filed but the High Court declined to interfere with the order made by the trial court and rejected the said petition, hence this appeal.
4. On February 25, 2000 when this matter came up for hearing before us, we directed that the Appellant shall deposit the said amount within a period of one week from the date of the order. The said amount was deposited on March 2, 2000. In the circumstances when the Appellant was not in a position to perform the direction given by the Court in view of the holiday, the Court cannot expect the Appellant to perform what is impossible. Further, when a period of time has been granted to a party to fulfil a condition, until expiration of that period, it cannot be said as to why a particular act has not been done before that time. The order passed in such matters are made in terrorem to fulfil conditions. In the circumstance we think it is appropriate to set aside the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the trial court and direct that the amount deposited by the Appellant be treated to have been made in pursuance of the decree made by the trial court originally. On other aspects, we express no opinion. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Print Page
Supreme Court of India
K.S. Muthu vs T. Govindarajulu And Anr. on 13 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: JT 2000 (7) SC 372, 2000 (4) SCALE 175
Bench: S R Babu, S Phukan
2. A suit for specific performance was decreed on August 30,1997 and the Appellant was granted one week's, time to deposit the balance of sale consideration in the Court and the last date for depositing the said amount was September 6, 1997. It is stated that September 5, 1997 was declared to be a holiday and September 6/7, 1997 being Saturday and Sunday were again general holidays and in these circumstances the Appellant made an application to permit him to deposit the amount on September 8, 1997. The trial court declined to grant permission to deposit the amount on September 8, 1997 by stating that the Appellant ought not to have waited till the last date; that if really he had money in his hands, he would have deposited within the four days and not having done so he cannot seek indulgence of the Court now. On that basis the trial court rejected the application for extension of time.
3. A Revision petition was filed but the High Court declined to interfere with the order made by the trial court and rejected the said petition, hence this appeal.
4. On February 25, 2000 when this matter came up for hearing before us, we directed that the Appellant shall deposit the said amount within a period of one week from the date of the order. The said amount was deposited on March 2, 2000. In the circumstances when the Appellant was not in a position to perform the direction given by the Court in view of the holiday, the Court cannot expect the Appellant to perform what is impossible. Further, when a period of time has been granted to a party to fulfil a condition, until expiration of that period, it cannot be said as to why a particular act has not been done before that time. The order passed in such matters are made in terrorem to fulfil conditions. In the circumstance we think it is appropriate to set aside the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the trial court and direct that the amount deposited by the Appellant be treated to have been made in pursuance of the decree made by the trial court originally. On other aspects, we express no opinion. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment