KANDURI SAHU Vs. NIDHI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner on 20-2-1963. On 4-31963 an application was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. On 26-9-63 the court passed the following order:

(2.) SECTION 148 of the Code lays down that where any period is fixed or granted by court for the doing of any 'act prescribed or allowed by this Code' (Code of Civil procedure) the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. The underlined (here into ' ') expression furnishes the key to the construction of the section. There are certain provisions in the Code under which the court fixes or grants time for the performance of certain acts. By way of illustration, a reference may be made to Order 6 Rule 18 and Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (c) of the Code. Order 6 Rule 18 says that if a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the lime limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court. Order 7 Rule 11 mentions cases in which the plaint shall be rejected. Clause (b)thereof says that where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so, the plaint shall be rejected. Similarly Clause (c) lays down that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so. There are various other provisions in the Code prescribing or allowing the doing of an act for which time is fixed or granted by the court. In all such cases, the Court has powers under Section 148 of the Code to enlarge the time, even after expiration of the period originally fixed.

(3.) THE time granted by the Court for payment of costs, while setting aside an ex-parte decree, as a condition precedent thereto, is not an act prescribed or allowed by the Code. Though the Court fixes or grants time for payment of the costs, it is not for doing an act prescribed or allowed by the Code. Section 148 of the Code has no application to such a case. Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882 is a case relating to payment of court-fees. That is an act prescribed or allowed by the Code. That case has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case regarding the applicability of Section 148 of the Code. The learned trial Court was correct in saying that Section 148 had no application.