Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 369 (MP)

Surjeebai Kala v. Rakesh Kumar Jain

1998-04-27

A.R.TIWARI

body1998
JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.1997 passed by IX Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore in Execution Case No. 225-A/97, thereby accepting the additional court-fee paid on 12.8.1997 as required by the direction issued in the decree. The additional court-fee has been paid but late. Placing reliance on 1995 (II) MPWN 245 (Moon Bidi Works v. State of M.P.), the counsel for the applicant submitted that the executing Court committed an error in enlarging the time without any formal application in that regard. The counsel for the non-applicant submits that additional court-fee was paid within the time enlarged by the Court and the Court below has not committed any error of jurisdiction in accepting the prayer, though oral and enlarging the time. The counsel for the applicant does not say that facts were not in existence to permit enlargement. His grievance is that such enlargement was not permissible without an application in that regard. Section 148 of the code of Civil Procedure provides as under :-- "148. Enlargement of time. -- Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired." In AIR 1983 SC 428 (Smt. Periyakkal and others v. Smt. Dakshyani) it is laid down that it is permissible for the Court to enlarge the time to prevent manifest in justice. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction, as held in AIR 1973 SC 76 [The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad] is little and limited. After perusal of the order, consideration of submissions as also the legal position, I am satisfied that no case is made out in terms of proviso (a) or (b) of section 115 (1) of the Code and this revision petition should suffer the fate of dismissal. In view of the circumstances noted in the order, the aforesaid decision, pressed into service by the counsel for the applicant, is not helpful to the applicant. In the circumstances I dismiss this revision petition with no orders as to costs. Record shall be returned immediately.