ROSHAN LAL Vs. GANPAT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. The respondent, Ganpat Lal has a decree for Rs. 3786 against the firm Nand Ram Piare Lnl which was represented by Piare Lal, the father of the appellant Roshan Lal. The decree-holder attached soma property in execution of his decree. An objection was filed by Roshan Lal under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. He claimed the attached property as his. The objection was dismissed. Roshan Lal ton filed the suit under Order 21, Rule 53 for declaration of his right to the property. The suit was disposed of in accordance with a compromise which was entered into between the parties. It was agreed in that compromise that if Roshan Lal paid Rs. 2600 by four instalments, the entire decree would be deemed to be satisfied but that if default was made in payment of any one instalment, the whole of the decretal amount, namely Rs. 3786, would be recovered by the decree-holder. Under the terms of the compromise, the appellant Roshan Lal had to hypothecate his property for the satisfaction of the decree. Roshan Lal accordingly executed a mortgage deed, mortgaging his property. The dates for the payment of the instalments were fixed in the compromise. The first two instalments were paid on the due dates. The third instalment was to be paid on Sawan Sudi 15, Sambat 1990, corresponding to 5 August 1933. The fourth instalment was payable on Kartik Sudi 15, corresponding to 2 November, 1933. The third instalment was not paid in accordance with the terms of the compromise. On 4 August, Roshan Lal deposited Rs. 300 and applied to the Court for permission to deposit the balance of Rs. 700 with the fourth instalment. The Court passed an ex parte order granting time and allowing the sum of Rs. 300 to be deposited. On 31 August 1933, Roshan Lal applied to the Court for extension of time for the payment of the balance of the third instalment and the whole of the fourth instalment.

(2.) This application was opposed by the decree-holder and the appellant's application was dismissed on 3 November 1933. Roshan Lal then filed a tender offering to pay the entire balance of the third and the fourth instalments. Ha deposited the entire sum, namely Rs. 600, the next day, that is on 4 November 1933. The decree holder applied on 9 November 1933 for execution for the balance of his decretal amount of Rupees 3786 giving credit for the money that had been paid. Roshan Lal objected to the execution on the ground that the decree had been fully satisfied by the payment of Rs. 2600 in accordance with the terms of the compromise. The objection was disallowed by the execution Court and also by the lower Appellate Court. The decisions of both the lower Courts were con-firmed by the learned single Judge. The appellant has filed this appeal in Letters Patent from the decision of the learned single Judge. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether there was any default on the part of the judgment-debtor in paying the fourth instalment which, as stated above, fell duo on 2 November, 1933. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that as 2nd November 1933 was a holiday and as the tender was filed by the appellant on the next day, that is 3 November 1933, the payment was within time. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on Muhammad Jan V/s. Shiam Lal (1924) 11 A.I.R. All. 218. That was a case of a decree in a pre-emption suit under which the purchase money was to ha deposited within a certain period which expired on a date on which the Court was closed for the vacation. The deposit was made on the date on which the Court re-opened. It was held: There is a generally recognized principle of law under which parties who are prevented from doing a thing in Court on a particular day, not by any act of their own, but by the Court itself, are entitled to do it at the first subsequent opportunity.

(3.) Under a pre-emption decree, the decretal money is to be deposited in Court. Order 20, Rule 14 lays down: Where the Court decrees a claim to pre-emption in respect of a particular sale of property and the purchase money has not been paid into Court, the decree shall : (a) specify a day on or before which the purchase money shall be so paid and (b) diroot that on payment into Court of such purchase money...the defendant shall deliver possession....