HAJARA UMMA Vs. MUHAMMED KUNHI HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in this revision is whether the court has jurisdiction to review a conditional order passed on a prior occasion which on non compliance of the condition had worked itself out. The conditional order formed part of the judgment of the Addl. District Judge of Tellicherry in A. S. 524 of 1965. The condition was embodied in the judgment in the following terms:

(2.) I think the learned Judge is in error in having extended the time for deposit of the batta. Neither under S.148 CPC. nor under O. 47 R.1 is the court competent to interfere with the order first passed. S.148 is clearly inapplicable where the non compliance of the condition would operate automatically and without further intervention of the court the suit results in a decree and the court becomes "functus officio."

(3.) The Calcutta High Court seems to have taken a different view; but the preponderance of judicial opinion is in favour of the former view. If, however, the application for extension is filed before the expiry of the period fixed, the court can grant extension under S.148 CPC. The position is not improved if instead of S.148 CPC. remedy is sought under O.47 R.1. In instances like the present one, where a peremptory order directing the deposit within a specified time is passed and is further directed that in the case of non compliance, an adverse order would follow, the court will have no power at all to interfere on the ground that events that had transpired subsequent to the passing of the order are compelling to take a lenient view in the matter. On non compliance with the condition, the order that follows will have to be presumed to be an order passed on the date when the condition itself was imposed. Therefore, there cannot be any force in the contention that on account of the subsequent events the party was disabled from complying with the condition.