NAGARATHINAM Vs. VELAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in O.S.No.435 of 1984 on the file of First Additional Sub Court, Madurai is the revision petitioner.

(2.) AN ex parte decree was obtained by plaintiff directing defendant to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Though attempt was made to have the ex parte decree set aside, the same was not successful. The decree became final.

(3.) IN Sardar Mohar Singh v. Mangilal (1997)9 S.C.C. 217 their Lordships have held that principle of Sec.5 of Limitation Act has no application while seeking extension of time under Sec.148 of Code of Civil Procedure. IN paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment, their Lordships have held thus: ?3. Shri. R.S.Suri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the inordinate delay of 7 1/2 years in making the application and in view of the finding given by the executing court that no proper explanation was given by the respondent for the delay, the execution court as well as the High Court committed an error of law in directing extension of time there being no proper explanation. The High Court also was wrong in its conclusion that the decree can be treated to be a preliminary decree and, therefore, the direction can be granted in the final decree. It is also contended that the court has no power to extend time. We do not find force in any of these contentions. It is seen that Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short? the Act?) gives right to the judgment-debtor to file an application to rescind the contract. It reads as under: