SULAIKHA KUNJU Vs. KRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this revision petition is as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of the price of redemption fixed as per a decree for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. The suit for redemption was decreed on 3-8-1976 directing the plaintiff mortgagor to deposit the redemption price fixed at Rs. 4097. 38 within six months from the date of the decree. On such deposit together with subsequent interest and costs the defendant is directed to put the plaintiff in possession of the property mortgaged. The decree contained a default clause that on failure of deposit as aforesaid the plaintiff will be debarred from redeeming the property. The period of six months for deposit fixed under the decree expired on 3-2-1977. The plaintiff mortgagor deposited the redemption price on 14-2-1977 and as per E. P. No. 29 of 1977 applied for execution of the decree. He filed another application E. A. No. 95 of 1977 for extension of time, till 14-2-1977 for deposit of the amount fixed under the decree. The execution court dismissed the application for extension of time and also the execution petition on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree. CRP. No. 786 of 1978 filed by the plaintiff-mortgagor against these orders of the execution court was dismissed on 18-7-1980, on the ground that the plaintiff bad in the meanwhile filed IA. No. 939 of 1978 in the suit on the original side for extension of time for deposit of the amount. He had also filed I.A. No. 1169 of 1978 for drafting a proper decree in accordance with Form No. 7 D appended to the Code of Civil Procedure. Both these petitions were allowed by the lower court and the legal representative of the mortgagee-defendant has come up in revision

(2.) Sub rule (2) of R.7 of Order XXXIV, reads as follows:

(3.) In Het Singh and Others v. Tika Ram (ILR (34) Allah. 388) a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that notwithstanding a default clause in the decree, the Court has jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit under the corresponding provision of R.8 of Order XXXIV, as it then stood. It is stated at page 390:-