JUDGMENT
(1) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court reported as Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das, . The learned counsel for the defendants also relied upon this authority.
(2) The perusal of this Supreme Court authority goes to upheld the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The following excerpts from the Supreme Court authority would go to make the point clear :- “……THE short question is whether the High Court, in the circumstances of the case. was powerless to enlarge the time, even though it had peremptorily fixed the period for payment… Section 148 of the Code, in terms, allows extension of time, even if the original period fixed has expired, and Section 149 is equally liberal. A fortiori, those sections could be invoked by the applicant, when the time bad not actually expired.”
(3) The following further observations are also instructive:- “HOW undesirable it is to fix time peremptorily for a future happening which leaves the Court powerless to deal with events that might arise in between, it is not necessary to decide in this appeal. These orders turn out, often enough to be inexpedient. Such procedural orders, though peremptory (conditional decrees apart) are, in essence, in terrorem, so that dilatory litigants might put themselves in order and avoid delay. They do not, however, completely estop a Court from taking note of events and circumstances which happen within the time fixed. For example, it cannot be said that, it the appellant had started with the full money ordered to be paid and came well in time but was set upon and robbed by thieves the day previous, he could not ask for extension of time, or that the Court was powerless to extend it. Such orders are not like the law of the Medes and the Persians. Cases are known in which Court have moulded their practice to meet a situation such as this and to have restored a suit or proceeding, even though a final order had been passed.”