NIKHIL KUMAR SAHA Vs. HEDAYAT ALI MOLLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Nikhil Kumar Saha filed a suit for specific performance on May 16. 1975 on the allegation that the opposite party No. 1 agreed to sell the disputed land to the petitioner for Rs. 2,300/- and executed and registered an agreement for sale on August 12, 1974 on receipt of the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The opposite party No. 2 is related to the opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2, though aware of the agreement for sale, obtained a fictitious deed of sale from the opposite party No. 1. In spite of repeated demands of the petitioner, they refused to execute any deed of sale. The petitioner thereafter instituted the suit. On April 4, 1978 the suit was decreed on the following terms:

(2.) On May 3, 1978 the petitioner filed an application for extension of time for one month for the deposit on the ground that the petitioner's father used to look after the suit and as he was confined to bed he could not inform the petitioner about the iudgment. The petitioner received the information on May 3, 1978 about the direction for deposit. As he had not the requisite money with him, he could not deposit the same and he prayed for time for one month. The said application was heard by the learned Munsif on May 25, 1978. By the order dated June 1, 1978 the learned Munsif rejected the application on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit of the money The petitioner has challenged the said order of the learned Munsif in the present Rule.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the learned Munsif was wrong in holding that he had no jurisdiction to extend the time. The application was filed before the expiry of the period limited by the decree and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (Ma-hanth Ram Das v. Ganpa Das) and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in (Sm Lakshmi Bala Chanak v. Brojendra Nath Pain) the learned Munsif had jurisdiction to deal with the application. The learned Advo-cate argues that the learned Munsif failed to exercise jurisdiction and there has been failure of justice. The learned Advocate has further contended that the decision in B. Ganpati's case on which the learned Munsif has relied, does not apply to the present case