LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-59

VIJAY KUMAR Vs. ANAND PARKASH GOEL

Decided On November 03, 2006
VIJAY KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Anand Parkash Goel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby an application filed by the Judgment Debtor under Sections 148 and 151 C.P.C. dated 13.9.1999, was allowed and the objections in respect of execution of the decree, were accepted.

(2.) THE petitioner along with other co-owners filed a suit for possession of the tenanted premises. The said suit was decided on the basis of compromise dated 9.11.1993 when the tenant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 32,300/- on or before 30.11.1993. Thereafter, the tenant was to pay monthly rent @ Rs. 1100/- apart from house tax. It is admitted that the tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 32,000/- within the time prescribed. The petitioner moved an application for execution of the ejectment order as the agreed amount of Rs. 32,300/- was not deposited within the time prescribed in the said execution. The tenant filed objections and also sought extension of the time for deposit of meagre amount of Rs. 300/- within the time prescribed as it was stated that such payment could not be made on account of inadvertent bona fide mistake.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Court has no power to extend the time fixed under the consent decree and, therefore, the learned trial Court has gravely erred in extending the time. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hukamchand v. Bansilal and others, A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 86 and another judgment of the single Bench Judgment of this court in Smt. Parmeshri v. Naurata, A.I.R. 1984 Punjab and Haryana 342. However, I do not find any merit in the said argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.