MAHENDER RAM Vs. SARDUL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed dated 04.11.2009, rendered by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sirsa, the application moved by the petitioner, under Section 148 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration, in terms of the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2006, has since been declined.

(2.) In an application moved by the petitioner-plaintiff, it was maintained that the suit filed by him was decreed by the trial court on 27.11.2006, and he was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration within 15 days, failing which suit of the petitioner-plaintiff shall stand dismissed. Plaintiff happened to be an illiterate person and when the matter was pronounced in the court, it was only heard by the clerk of his counsel. Petitioner-plaintiff was never informed of the fate of his suit or the decree passed in his favour. However, subsequently his counsel apprised him of the judgment dated 27.11.2006. Therefore, non-deposit of balance sale consideration was a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner.

(3.) In response, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the decree passed by the trial court on 27.11.2006 was conditional in nature and thus, prayer for extension of time cannot be granted.