INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LTD Vs. PONNA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the counter-petitioner creditor in a petition under S. 4, 8 & 12 of Act XXXI of 1958. The petition was filed by debtors who are three in number. Admittedly the first instalment of the debt as admitted by the petitioners was not deposited in court within the period of six months prescribed by the Act. THIS period expired on 14-1-1959. Even before the expiry of that period they had filed an application on 30-10-1958 praying that time may be granted till 30-3-1959. THIS was not allowed by the court. By the order dated 4-11-1958, the court granted time till 14-11-1958. Since the 6 months' period was to expire only on 14-1-1959, the time granted till 14-11-1958 was of no use. In fact the effect of that order was to dismiss the petition for extension of time. In view of such an order, the petitioners should have deposited the first instalment on or before 14-1-1959 or should have again applied for extension of time before 14-1-1959. Petitioners failed to take any such steps. On 6-2-1959 they applied for a review of the order dated 4-11-1958 and then to extend the time to make the deposit. THIS review application itself was out of time. But the delay was got condoned by filing another application. The lower court then allowed the review petition and extended the time till 26-2-1959. The present appeal is against that order.

(2.) WE think that the lower court's order cannot be supported even on the merits. There are no proper grounds to review the prior order dated 4-11-1958. The ground stated is that the petitioner was suffering from tooth ache. Even if this case is accepted as true, the disability was only that of the petitioner. There were two other debtors who were also joint petitioners to the main petition. Any one of them could have applied for extension of time. No explanation is offered for the failure to do so. It is not stated that the petitioner himself was unwell from 4-11-1958 till 14-1-1959. The petitioners should have known that an application for extension of time ought to have been filed in time. It cannot be said that the time applied for at any time and on any ground can be allowed. Extension of time is to be done by a judicial order, and for passing such an order there must be proper, sufficient and acceptable reasons. There is no such reason in the present case and hence the lower court was wrong in allowing the review and in granting an extension of time. The application for extension of time was also not filed within the time prescribed by the statute. As already stated, the main petition is one under S. 12 also. Clause (4) of that section states that application for extension of time must be filed before the expiry of the period fixed for depositing the instalment. This period expired on 14-1-1959. The subsequent application, whether for review or extension was out of time and hence could not be allowed.