THAMANAMPUDI KANTHAMMA Vs. THAMANAMPUDI PEDA VEERAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to condone the delay in depositing the amount of Rs. 200.00 towards profits of the year 1958 as per the order of this Court dated 26-2-1957.

(2.) The petitioner, who is the appellant in Section A. No. 709 of 1956, filed C.M.P. No. 6644 of 1956 for stay of execution of the decree in O. Section No. 77 of 11950 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Eluru, and an order granting stay had been made whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit within two months of that order certain sums and as regards future mesne profits, the petitioner was further directed to deposit Rs. 200.00 on 15th of March every year commencing from 15-3-58. The petitioner avers that as the copy of the order of this Court in the said application was left in the office of her counsel in the lower Court, she was ignorant of the dale stipulated in the order, but deposited the said sum of Rs. 200.00 only on 24-4-58, i.e., immediately after she came to know that deposit is due. The petitioner pleads that the delay in depositing the amount is not intentional but was on account of her ignorance about the correct date.

(3.) Sri Ramanujachari, the learned counsel for the respondent, opposes the application on the ground that as the order of the stay application has the clause "In case of default, the stay petition in CMP No. 6644 of 1956 will stand dismissed with costs", there is no power in the Court to extend these time or enlarge the period for payment. He calls in aid the decision reported in Nasar Sahob v. Nabi Saheb, 1956 ALT 489; (AIR 1957 Andh-Pra 780), where in an application to set aside the expert decree, an order was made that the costs awarded by the decree should be deposited by 2-00 p.m., on a particular day and that in default the petition will stand dismissed. But the amount was not deposited before that time so fixed. The applications for extending time and for reviewing the order by the defaulter were dismissed, The learned Chief Justice delivering the judgment of the Bench held that the authority in Balakrishma Aiyar v. Par-vathammal. 53 Mad LJ 494: (AIR 1928 Mad 154), clearly laid down that the Court has no power to extend the time when the order works itself out.