GOBIND PRASAD Vs. TULSI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decision of the District. Judge of Bhagalpur reversing an order of the Subordinate Judge. The circumstances were as follows: The decree holders-appellants had obtained a decree for a sum of money against the respondents, and a compromise decree was made by means of which the whole amount was to be discharged by payments in certain instalments. The first instalment had to be paid during the month of Kartik 1339 F.S. of Rs. 300. The respondents did not pay the Rs. 300 by the last date of Kartik, and their view of the agreement was that they had the right either to pay the instalments to the appellants direct or to pay it into Court.

(2.) The Court was closed on the last date of Kartik and the respondents paid it into Court three days later. As the District Judge has rightly held, the proper construction of the agreement involves no payment of the instalments into Court. The instalments had to be paid to the parties personally, and undoubtedly there was a default of three days in carrying out the obligation to pay the instalment during the month of Kartik. The learned District Judge however went on to say that in his opinion he had the power to grant equitable relief against the obligation to pay the instalments punctually, and purporting to act in pursuance of his supposed power to grant relief he gave an extension of three days to make the payment.

(3.) It has been held by this Court quite recently that in an agreement of this kind there is no power in the Court to grant any extension of time. It is frankly admitted by the learned advocate Coy; the respondents that in view of this decision it was not possible for him to press the point of law upon which he relied. It follows therefore that the decision of the learned District Judge is erroneous. The decision of the learned District Judge must be set aside and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge must be restored with costs here and in the Court of the District Judge. Saunders, J.