GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER Vs. GOVINDA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment - debtor whoso application under S.7 and 8 of Act XXXI of 1958 was dismissed by the lower court, has come up in appeal. The dismissal of his application was made f or the reason that he had defaulted to deposit the second instalment in time. The fact of such default is not disputed and cannot also be disputed. Sometime after the expiry of the time within which the second instalment had to be deposited, the debtor made the deposit on 7 9 1959 and also sought for an extension of the time for depositing the second instalment. What is permitted by the statute is only an extension of time for proper reasons. It is obvious that such extension should be asked for even before the expiry of the prescribed period. After the expiry of that period, there can bo no extension of the period. If at all, there could only be a case of excusing the delay brought about in making the deposit. But there is no provision in the statute to enable the court to excuse the delay in such cases. Thus the lower court was right in dismissing the application for extension of time because such extension was asked for only after the expiry of the period. The dismissal of the application under S.7 & 8 also is warranted by Clause.3 of S.8 because of the default to make the deposit of the second instalment in time.

(2.) The status of the debtor as an agriculturist had also been disputed by the decree holder. This question was not considered and decided by the lower court in view of the dismissal of the application for default in making the deposit. We therefore direct that the question whether the debtor is an agriculturist will be deemed to be left open and that the order dismissing the debtor's application under S.7 & 8 will not conclude him on the question of his status. 2. Subject to the above observations, the order of the lower court is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed with costs.