IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 1066 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.3.2009
Soma Devi
....Petitioner
Versus
Gurmail Singh
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:- Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for
Mr. R.K. Kapila, Advocate
for the petitioner.
RAJESH BINDAL J
****
The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated January
27, 2009, passed by the learned Court below whereby the time for deposit of
balance sale consideration in a decree for joint possession was extended.
Briefly, the facts are that vide judgment and decree dated May 24,
2008, the respondent/plaintiff was granted 60 days time to deposit the balance
sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. However, the same having not been
deposited an application for extension of time was made, which was accepted by
learned Court below on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff Gurmail Singh
had gone abroad and his father, who was representing him as attorney, fell ill.
Learned Court below finding cause shown by respondent/plaintiff to be sufficient
for extension of time, granted 20 days further period for deposit of amount from
the date of passing of order on January 27, 2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without there
being any evidence on record to show about the illness of father of the plaintiff
no extension of time could be granted by the learned Court below. The time as
granted originally should have been strictly adhered to by the
respondent/plaintiff.
However, I do not find any merit in the submission made. Initially
the Court had granted 60 days time on May 24, 2008 for deposit of balance sale
consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. It was pleaded in the application for extension of
time that the respondent/plaintiff Gurmail Singh had gone abroad and the
amount could not be deposited by his attorney father because of his illness. It
has been noticed by learned Court below that the application was not
vehemently contested by the petitioner/defendant except on the ground that the
same was baseless. Any period granted by the learned Court below for doing an
act can certainly be extended if sufficient cause is shown for
-2-
the same. In the present case learned Court below having exercised the
discretion for the reasons stated in the order, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the same. It has also to be noticed that 20 days time was granted vide
impugned order passed on January 27, 2009 and the present petition was filed
after the expiry of time further granted.
Dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
10.3.2009 JUDGE
Reema