P. Rangasamy vs Avinashi Gounder and Smt. Lakshmi

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—This revision has been directed against the order in I.A. No. 1837 of 2001, an application filed under

Sections 148 & 151 of CPC and u/s 25 of the Specific Relief Act, in O.S. No. 242 of 1996, a suit for specific performance of the contract, on the

file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruppur. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides has dismissed the said application on the ground that there

is no reason to condone the delay of 1230 days in depositing the balance of sale consideration as per the decree in O.S. No. 242 of 1996.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relying on Nachammal Vs. Lavangammal, , would contend that this is a fit case in which the

substantial justice shall be done to the revision petitioner since he has lost his son in an accident and since he was mentally upset, he could not

deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/- within the time stipulated by the Court, as per the decree in O.S. No. 242 of 1996. The

facts of the said ratio are as follows:- The respondents in CRP.PD. No. 836 of 2004 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 16 of 1999, a suit for partition

and separate possession. The 2nd defendant in the said suit, who is the revision petitioner therein had purchased the suit property from one

Dhanapal Gounder, (D1 - father of the respondents 1 to 3 and husband of 4th respondent) in the year 1989 under a registered sale deed. The suit

was decreed exparte against the 2nd defendant/revision petitioner therein. According to her, she came to know about the exparte decree only

when a notice was served on her in the final decree proceedings on 27.1.2002. Thereafter, she filed an application, namely, I.A. No. 180 of 2002

seeking to condone the delay of 1009 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree. The delay was condoned by the trial Court on

condition the petitioner pays a cost of Rs. 500/- to the respondents on or before 18.03.2003. The said cost was not paid in time. Hence, the said

petition to condone the delay was dismissed on 18.3.2008. On 05.08.2008 the petitioner field an application I.A. No. 435 of 2003 under

Sections 148 and 151 of CPC to extend the time for payment of costs. But the said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 27.2.2004

holding that the Court has no power u/s 148 to extend the time granted earlier as it had become functus officio. Against the said order CRP.PD.

No. 836 of 2004 was preferred. While disposing the said CRP the Division Bench of this Court after referring to several decisions viz.,

Pakkiammal Vs. Anaiappan, , Arthanari and Another Vs. S. Seshagiri Rao and Others, 2001(3) LW 254 (D. Raju v. N. Ramalingam), 2003(3)

MLJ 770 (Angammal v. Ramasamy), 2005(3) MLJ 331 (K. Rangasamy Gounder v. Muthusamy Gounder) has observed as follows:

The decision rendered by the Supreme Court on this point, which is a ratio decidendi, is a law on the land, binding on all Courts in India, under

Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Where the Supreme Court has stated that the law laid down in a particular case is the applicable law, it

cannot be contended that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court has not considered the point, regarding functus officio. It is not only a

matter of discipline for the High Courts in India, but it is the mandate of the Constitution, as provided under Article 141, that the law declared by

the Supreme Court shall be respected by all the Courts and the counsel as well as the parties, within the territory of India.

...

In the present case, the Trial Court simply dismissed the application stating that it had no power. But, we have concluded that the Court has got

power to entertain an application under Sections 148 and 151 of CPC, to consider the merits of the matter for condoning the delay or for

extending time. Admittedly, in this case, the application has been filed before the Trial Court under Sections 148 and 151 of CPC.

Under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the trial Court has got ample power to extend time for depositing the balance of sale consideration as

per the terms of the decree in O.S. No. 242 of 1996. There cannot be two opinion with regard to the settled proposition of law that time can be

extended under Sections 148 and 151 of CPC for depositing the balance of sale consideration in a specific performance suit. But the important

point to be considered in this case is whether such an extension of time under Sections 148 & 151 of CPC can be given by the Court when the

limitation Act comes in the way prescribing three years time for depositing the balance of sale consideration under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

Article 54 of the Limitation Act runs as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period

beings to run

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For specific performance Three years The date fixed by the

of a contract performance, or, if no

such date is fixed, when

the plaintiff has notice

that performance is

refused.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case on hand the suit O.S. No. 242 of 1996 was decreed on 29.4.1997, giving time for the plaintiff to deposit the balance of sale

consideration within one month, i.e., on or before 28.5.1997. So as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plaintiff has to execute the

decree in O.S. No. 242 of 1996 on or before 28.5.2000. But unfortunately in this case I.A. No. 1837 of 2001 was filed only on 10.08.2000 i.e.,

nearly three months after the expiry of the date fixed by under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Under such circumstance, I am of the view

that the Court cannot extend time under Sections 148 & 151 of CPC when the time granted under the Limitation Act has already been expired.

Once the suit is barred under the Limitation Act, the Court thereafter cannot extend the time either u/s 148 or u/s 151 of CPC or u/s 28 of the

Specific Relief Act. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the application I.A. No. 1837 of 2001 in O.S. No. 242 of 1996 is clearly

barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, and the same is not maintainable under law. Hence, the this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be

dismissed.

In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed before admission. No costs.