NARSINGH PRASAD SINGH Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application inviting us to review an order of 21 May 1927 by which the learned Munsif of Benares purported to extend the time, originally limited by a decree for redemption pay up.

(2.) The suit out of which this application has arisen was one far the redemption of the mortgage, the nature of which we have not been told. The decree, however, that was passed indicates that the mortgage was one by conditional sale, for we find that the decree directed that in case for non-payment of the mortgage money the plaintiffs right of redemption would be barred. We have assumed, therefore, that the mortgage was one by conditional sale and that the decree in those terms was rightly passed. The last date on which the payment could be made was the 30 April 1927. On 29 April 1927 the plaintiffs came into Court with an application for extension of time. The learned Judge has extended the time by 15 days by the order complained of. In this Court it has been contended that this order was passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Code, namely, Schedule 1, Order 34, Rule 8, Civil P.C., did not authorize the Munsif to extend time in a case of a decree for foreclosure.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the proviso to Rule 8 is a part of Sub-rule (4) alone and does not govern the entire Rule 8.