M/S. KUMAR CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. ANAND KUMAR BHARGAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against an order dated 8.9.1988 whereby VI Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore rejected the application for extension of time for furnishing security as a condition precedent for grant of leave to defend the suit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the non applicant No. 1 Anand Kumar Bhargav filed a suit under order XXXVII of the C.P.C. against the applicants and other non-applicants. In the suit leave to defend was granted on 31.10.1987 on condition of furnishing a security for Rs. 33,000.00 within 15 days. The case was fixed on 16.11.1987 and on that date, the presiding judge was on leave. The case was then adjourned to 20.11.1987 and on that date, the attention of the Court was invited to the fact that leave to defend was granted on the condition of furnishing security. The hearing was postponed to 25.11.1987. On that date the presiding judge was on leave and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 17.12.1987 and then on 18.12.1987. On 18.12.1987 the time for furnishing security was extended till 24.12.1987. On that date the Court did not function because of the death of Shri M.G. Ramchandran and 14.1.1988 was fixed for furnishing security. It was not furnished and on that date the time was extended till 20.1.1988. In the meantime compromise talks started between the parties and on 20.1.1988 the case was adjourned to 8.2.1988. On 8.2.1988 the case was adjourned to 22.2.1988 and in this way the case continued to be adjourned till 8.9.1988. Time was taken for filing a compromise which never materialised and on 8.9.1988 the applicant tendered security bond for Rs. 33,000.00 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. It was this application which has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that it would not be in the interest of justice to extend time further because sufficient time had already been granted earlier. Leave to defend the suit was granted on 31.10.1987 on the condition precedent of furnishing security for Rs. 33,000.00within 15 days, but almost a year passed and no security was furnished till 8.9.1988 with the result that the Court refused to condone the delay and the time was not extended by the Court below. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed.

(3.) It was argued before me that the Court had power to extend time under Sec. 148 of the C.P.C. There can be no dispute on this point that the Court had power to extend time, but after all there has to be a limit to it. A direction was given to the non-applicants to furnish security within 15 days. On 24.12.1987 the Court passed an order that last opportunity was being granted for furnishing security and then after the mode of seeking adjournment was changed.