Laxman Changdeo Kale vs Sumanbai Limba Ranjane
2017 Latest Caselaw 4681 Bom

                                                                                   903_WP881216.odt


         
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 8812 OF 2016

Laxman Changdeo Kale
Age: 49 Years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Aadgaon Khu., Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar.                                                ..PETITIONER
              VERSUS
Sumanbai Limba Ranjane
Age: 42 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Pimpri Nirmal, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar.                                                ..RESPONDENT

                                      ....
Ms. S.M. Zaware, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for respondent.
                                      ....

                                                      CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATED : 18th JULY, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27 th July, 2016 passed

by the Trial Court by which application Exhibit 27 praying for extending the

time to deposit the money as was directed by the Court, has been rejected.

1 / 4

903_WP881216.odt

3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Counsel

for the respective sides. Mr. Karpe, learned Counsel vehemently submits that

when no fault can be found in the impugned order, this Court would not

interfere and this petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. He further

submits that R.C.S. No. 228 of 2012 has been subsequently disposed of as the

petitioner failed to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- within the period granted

by the judgment dated 16th April, 2016.

4. It is not in dispute that the judgment was delivered on 16 th April,

2016 and the petitioner was granted time of one month to deposit Rs.10,000/-,

so as to ensure the payment of the residual amount.

5. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner failed to deposit

Rs.10,000/-. This gave rise to the liberty to the respondent/defendant to seek

permission for executing the sale deed within a period of three months.

6. Mr. Karpe, learned Counsel has therefore contended that once the

plaintiff fails to deposit the said amount, doors are closed for the plaintiff and it

would be open for the defendant to seek permission and get the sale deed

executed. He submits that it is not significant whether she has moved the Trial

Court upon failure of the plaintiff in depositing the amount or not.

2 / 4

903_WP881216.odt

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Yeshoda Vs. K. Nagarajan

1996 (11) SCC 228 has concluded that under Section 148 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, the Court can enlarge the time for complying with the orders. The

said provision gives power to the Court to exercise its discretion in enlarging the

time. It is further concluded that in the interest of justice, the Court should

grant such extension of time.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of D.V. Paul Vs. Manisha

Lalwani AIR 2010 SC 3356 as reiterated the said law and has concluded that

Section 148 would permit the Trial Court to exercise its discretion and enlarge

the time so as to ensure that ends of justice are met.

9. This Court, in the matter of Smt. Vatsala Shankar Bansole Vs.

Sambhaji Nanasaheb Khandare and Another 2002 (4) ALL M.R. 374, arrived

at a conclusion that the Trial Court has the power to enlarge the time under

Section 148 for complying with the direction of the Court.

10. The facts from the case in hand indicate that the delay was of two

months to deposit the amount. The suit was therefore dismissed. It is stated by

the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said amount as well as the

amount of cost, if so imposed by this Court, would be deposited before the Trial

3 / 4

903_WP881216.odt

Court without fail within four weeks from today. Mr. Karpe, learned Counsel

submits that in such a situation, heavy costs be imposed.

11. Considering the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order

dated 27th July, 2016 is quashed and set aside and application Exhibit 27 is

allowed. The petitioner shall therefore deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/-

inclusive of cost amount of Rs.5,000/- before the Trial Court on or before 19 th

August, 2017 keeping in view that earlier there was a delay of two months. If

the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount, Clause 2 of the order dated 16 th

April, 2016 shall result in the dismissal of the said suit. Consequentially, R.C.S.

No. 228 of 2012 is restored to the file of the Trial Court for enabling the

petitioner to deposit the above said amount.

12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

( RAVINDRA V GHUGE, J. ) SSD

4 / 4