JAGANNATH Vs. JODHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision application, in an ejectment suit, against the judgment stariking off his defence. The appeal filed before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar was dismissed on May 18, 1979.

(2.) IN this ejectment suit, the plea of the plaintiff was for granting of a decree on the basis of the default and also bonafide necessity. On November 29, 1975, the Court ordered under section 13 (1) (a) that the defendant should deposit Rs. 488. 75p being arrears of rent within one month. The deposit was made on January 2, 1976.

(3.) IN Madan Gopal Daga vs. Rallis INdia Ltd. (4) Calcutta High Court has observed as under : - "one of the fundamental principles in administration of justice is 'actus Curine Neminem Gravabit' which means that an act of Court shall prejudice no man. IN construing and applying an ambigous order of Court this principle should be observed. It means that no litigant or person should be hurt or damaged or prejudiced by any ambiguity of the order of the Court. If the time fixed for payment of adjournment cost by an order of Court is ambigous then the correct computation of time by a true construction of the order must be such as causes the least prejudice and harm to a litigant or a person affected by the order. When the Court orders that payment (of adjournment cost by the plaintiff) is to be made by the end of a month and the end of such month happens to be a holiday it is no breach of that order for the party to do the act on very first subsequent day on which the Court reopens after the holiday. The principle of construction is that the Court grant time knowing that the time will expire on a holiday so that the litigant who is required to do an act within that time can get the benefit and grace of the additional time involved in holidays and pay on the very next subsequent day on which the Court reopens. It is only by that construction that the Court can avoid prejudice to a litigant before it. If the Court wants that a particular act is to be done without the benefit of this extended time, a holiday intervening on the date of the expiry of the order, then it is for the Court to expressly say so that the particular act should be done by a particular date which is not a holiday. Doubts, if any, in the construction or effect of the order of a Court in which there is a penal clause should always be resolved in favour of the litigant by extending the time to include, the holiday and not to make him a victim of such doubts. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to an order of the Court. Section 10 is only applied where a statute allows an order or act to be done within a particular time. It cannot be extended to cover an order of Court, fixing a particular time within an act is to be done. "