Represented By Smt. Sipra Halder & ... vs Smt. Kabyashree Mukherjee
2022 Latest Caselaw 8580 Cal

                                                 FA 150 of 2010
Item-2.                                          CAN 7 of 2022
          21-12-2022



  sg        Ct. 8                    Smt. Amala Dutta, since deceased,
                                 Represented by Smt. Sipra Halder & Ors.
                                                  Versus
                                       Smt. Kabyashree Mukherjee

                            Mr. Dhrubojyoti Ghosh, Adv.
                            Mr. Somnath Maiti, Adv.
                            Mr. Anubrata Santra, Adv.
                                                       ...for the appellants

                            Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
                            Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Adv.
                            Mr. Anindya Halder, Adv.
                                                        ...for the respondent

The petitioner is the decree holder. The petitioner has filed

an application for extension of time to deposit the balance

consideration amount, which was originally agreed to

Rs.4,15,000/- since enhanced to Rs.40,00,000/-. The plaintiff paid

a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards earnest money out of total

consideration of Rs.4,15,000/- as stipulated by the respondent. To

execute a deed of conveyance, the suit for specific performance

was filed with a promise to pay balance consideration amount.

However, for the reason recorded in the judgment, we

enhanced the consideration to Rs.40,00,000/-. This judgment has

not been challenged by either of the parties till date. The decree-

holder filed the instant application on 25th November, 2022 before

the expiry of two months period stipulated in the decree for

extension of time by another two months on the ground that the

husband of the applicant had suffered cardiac problems for which

he was taken to Bangalore for treatment and there could be a

possibility of further requirement of fund in the event the husband

of the decree-holder has not recovered in the meantime.

On the earlier occasion, we directed the applicant to file an

affidavit disclosing its capability and capacity to pay the amount

had the said decree being implemented within the period when it

was supposed to be acted upon and payments were to be made in

accordance with the decree.

The supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant disclosed

that she had sufficient fund at the relevant time and even on that

date to pay the balance consideration amount.

We accept the explanation offered by the applicant for

extension of time to deposit the balance consideration amount

within two months from the date of filing of the application.

The time to pay balance consideration amount is

peremptorily extended till 25th January, 2023, in default, the suit

shall stand dismissed by reason of such extension.

In view of the aforesaid modification, there would be

automatic extension of the periods mentioned in the decree for

such months/periods with regard to the extension and registration

of the deed of sale and delivery of possession by the appellants to

the decree-holder.

The application accordingly, stands disposed of. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

The decree stands modified to the aforesaid extent.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)