IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 577 of 2004()
1. V.KRISHNAKUTTY, ULAKAPARAMBIL VEETTIL,
... Petitioner
2. A.S.RAGHAVAN, KATTUVATTAYIL, DO. MURI.
3. RAJAGOPAL, KUTTIYIL VEETTIL, DO. MURI.
4. BALAN, ULAKAMPARAMBIL, DO. MURI.
Vs
1. SAMBAVA MAHASABHA BRANCH NO.73,
... Respondent
2. DO.REP. BY ITS TALUK UNION PRESIDENT,
3. DO.REP. BY ITS TALUK UNION SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
For Respondent :SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :10/03/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
...................................................................................
C.R.P. No. 577, 585 AND 622 OF 2004
...................................................................................
Dated this the 10th March, 2008
O R D E R
The defendants in O.S.Nos. 86 of 1998 and 51 of 1998 on the file of the
Munsiff’s Court, Chengannur are the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos. 577 of 2004 and 622 of
2004. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 227 of 2000 is the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 585 of 2004.
All the three suits were ordered to be tried jointly. On 08.11.2002,
O.S.Nos. 51 of 1998 and 86 of 1998 were decreed ex parte and O.S.No. 227 of 2000
was dismissed for default. Applications were filed by the defendants under Rule 13
Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case where decree was passed ex parte
and an application was filed under Rule 9 Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure by
the plaintiff whose suit was dismissed for default. The trial court dismissed all those
applications for default. Later, on the applications filed for review of those orders, the
court below allowed review petitions on payment of costs of Rs. 1000/- each. It would
appear that cost of Rs.1000/- was deposited in total instead of Rs.1,000/- each in
three cases. Later, application were filed for extension of time invoking Section 148 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below dismissed the applications holding that
Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to get extension of time
for a period of more than 30 days, as Section 148 specifically provides for a period “not
exceeding 30 days in total”.
2. The order passed by the court below cannot be sustained in view of decision
of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India (AIR
2005 SUPREME COURT 3353) and R.N. JADI & BROTHERS AND OTHERS vs.
C.R.P. No. 577, 585 AND 622 OF 2004
2
SUBHASHCHANDRA ( [2007] 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 420) . In Salem
Advocate Bar Association’s case , the Supreme Court held as follows:
“45. The amendment made in Section 148 affects the power of the
Court to enlarge time that may have been fixed or granted by the Court
for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Code. The
amendment provides that the period shall not exceed 30 days in total.
Before amendment, there was no such restriction of time. Whether the
Court has no inherent power to extend the time beyond 30 days is the
question. We have no doubt that the upper limit fixed in Section 148
cannot take away the inherent power of the Court to pass orders as
may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process
of Court. The rigid operation of the section would lead to absurdity.
Section 151 has, therefore, to be allowed to fully operate. Extension
beyond maximum of 30 days, thus, can be permitted if the act could not
be performed within 30 days for the reasons beyond the control of the
party. We are not dealing with a case where time for doing an act has
been prescribed under the provisions of the Limitation Act which
cannot be extended either under Section 148 or Section 151. We are
dealing with a case where the time is fixed or granted by the Court for
performance of an act prescribed or allowed by the court.
xx xx xx xx xx
47. There can be many cases where non-grant of extension beyond
30 days would amount to failure of justice. The object of the Code is
not to promote failure of justice. Section 148, therefore, deserves to be
read down to mean that where sufficient cause exists or events are
beyond the control of a party, the Court would have inherent power to
extend time beyond 30 days.”
3. In R.N. Jadi’s case, the Supreme Court considered the question whether a
written statement filed beyond 90 days could be taken on record. It was held thus:
“10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The
C.R.P. No. 577, 585 AND 622 OF 2004
3
language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal
or stringent , but the fact remains that the object of prescribing
procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system,
no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in
the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and
specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other
procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which
would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the
ends of justice.”
The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The orders impugned are set aside.
The court below shall dispose of the applications under Section 148 of the Code of
Civil Procedure afresh in the light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the
Supreme Court.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk