Mini Pushkarna JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J.
I.A. 11922/2022 (u/S 151 of CPC seeking appropriate directions)
1. This is an application moved on behalf of the petitioners under Section 151 CPC seeking prayer for enlarging time for deposit of amount of Rs. 43.50 crores as directed by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2022.
2. This court while disposing of the present petition vide order dated 26.07.2022 had directed the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 43,50,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Crores Fifty Lacs Only) with the Registrar General of this Court within three days. The status quo order granted by way of order dated 26.07.2022 was subject to the petitioners depositing the aforesaid amount within the time granted with the Registrar General of this Court.
3. By way of the present application the petitioners have submitted that they require some time to arrange the liquidated funds. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners are real estate companies enjoying impeccable reputation in the real estate market since 2004 and that they have sound financial condition. However, on account of unforeseen situations, viz. COVID-19 pandemic and other related factors, which have been beyond the control of the petitioners, an immediate amount of sum of Rs. 43.50 crores in liquidated form is not readily available. Thus, it is submitted before this Court that the petitioners need some time to arrange the liquidated amount.
4. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are already in the process of arranging the said monies for compliance of order dated 26.07.2022 passed by this Court. However, since the amount directed to be deposited is a substantial amount, they need some time to arrange the liquidated amount. It is further submitted that in order to demonstrate their bona fides and their genuine zeal to comply with the directions of this Court, the petitioners may be permitted to deposit original title deeds for agricultural land measuring 12.9167 acres bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 20/20 consisting of Khasra Nos. 30/22/2(4-5), 33/2(4-12), 9(4-5), 10(4-12), 11(4-12), 12(3-18), 19(3-13), 20(4-12), 21(4-12), 22(3-8), 38//1(4-12), 2(3-1), 9(2-13), 10(4-13), 39//5(4-12), total admeasuring 62 Bigha 00, Biswa, situated in Village Budhanpur Mazra, District-North-West, Delhi.
5. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Valuation Report dated 19.05.2022 in which the said land has been valued at approximately Rs. 53.96 crores. Further, reliance has been placed upon Section 148 of the CPC to contend that enlargement of time can be granted by the court in its discretion from time to time to enlarge such period, where any period is granted by this Court for doing any act.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the present application. It is contended that the petitioners have preferred no review or appeal against the order dated 26.07.2022, wherein directions have been made to the petitioners to deposit the requisite amount within three days. It is contended that in the garb of the present application, the petitioners are seeking a review of the order dated 26.07.2022, and as such the present application is not maintainable. It is, thus, contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record occasioning any review of the order dated 26.07.2022.
7. Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondents has referred to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in the petition, wherein they showed their readiness and willingness to make payment in terms of MoU dated 14.07.2021. However, the present application is a manifestation that the petitioners do not have money that is readily available. It is further the case of the respondents that the petitioners want to secure on the basis of land belonging to some third party, and not the petitioners. It is further the case of the respondents that Section 148 CPC only provides for prescription as provided in the CPC. The respondents have also raised doubts about the Valuation Report stating that the valuation is not for the petitioners and that the said valuation has not been done for the purposes of depositing security before this Court. It is further contended that even in a suit for Specific Performance, the plaintiff has to show continuous readiness to pay.
8. The respondents have relied upon the following judgments in support of their contentions:
1. MANU/SC/0515/2000 : (2000) 7 SCC 296, Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others
2. MANU/SC/1779/2009 : (2010) 1 SCC 287, A.K. Lakshmipathy (Dead) and Others Vs. Rai Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti Charitable Trust and Others.
3. MANU/SC/0025/1996 : (1995) 5 SCC 115, N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) by LRs Vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and Others.
4. U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy.
9. In rejoinder, ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the present application is in the nature of directions and cannot be considered to be an application for review. Further, petitioners are not seeking any clarifications or modifications, but only enlargement of time for deposit of amounts before this Court. It is submitted that the land qua which the original title deeds are intended to be deposited, is an unencumbered land belonging to and owned by Bell Realtors Pvt. Ltd., which is one of the land owning company of the petitioner No. 1. Thus, the land does not belong to a third party but one of their own companies belonging to the petitioner No. 1. This Court was also taken through the Valuation Report dated 19.05.2022, to contend that the same has been carried out by an authorized Government Valuer.
10. Further, attention of this Court was also drawn to the document showing the property ownership, which showed 16.54 acres under the ownership of Bell Realtors Pvt. Ltd., which is one of the companies of the petitioner No. 1. During the course of the hearing, this Court was also handed over certified true copy of the extracts from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of Bell Realtors Pvt. Ltd. held on 28.07.2022, wherein it had been resolved to pledge the land in question as security till the time the petitioners deposit the requisite amount before this Court.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both the parties.
12. This Court by order dated 26.07.2022 had granted interim protection in favour of the petitioners in order to meet the ends of justice and for preservation of the property, subject matter of dispute. Thus, while granting the status quo order, this Court had directed the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 43.50 crores within three days with the Registrar General of this Court. Now, by way of the present application, the petitioners have prayed for enlargement of time for depositing Rs. 43.50 crores in this Court, since they need some time for arranging the said amount which is substantial. Thus, petitioners have prayed that some time may be granted to them to arrange the liquidated amount.
13. At the outset, I may deal with the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the present application is in the nature of a review. I have perused the application filed on behalf of the petitioners and the same can neither be considered an application for clarification or modification or recall or an application for review, in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as relied upon by the respondents. The present application is in the nature of prayer for extension of time as granted by this Court for deposit of the requisite amounts in this Court. Thus, the present application is maintainable and this Court can consider the same on its merits.
14. As regards the power of a court to grant extension of time, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in categorical terms that the court retains to itself the jurisdiction to re-examine the alteration or modification which may necessitate extension of time. The power to fix the time for doing of an act carries with it the power to extend such period. In the case of D.V. Paul Vs. Manisha Lalwani, MANU/SC/0621/2010 : (2010) 8 SCC 546, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"28. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Chinnamarkathian v. Ayyavoo [MANU/SC/0459/1981 : (1982) 1 SCC 159], where this Court declared that the scope and exercise of the jurisdiction to grant time to do a thing, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary curtailing, denying or withholding such jurisdiction, the jurisdiction to grant time would inhere in its ambit the jurisdiction to extend time initially fixed by it. The Court also called in the principle of equity that when circumstances are to be taken into account for fixing a length of time within which a certain action is to be taken, the court retains to itself the jurisdiction to re-examine the alteration or modification which may necessitate extension of time.
.................
32. It is not in the light of the above decisions open to the respondent to argue that a court can fix time for the doing of an act like making of a deposit, in the instant case, but has no jurisdiction to extend the said period even when a case for such extension is clearly made out. The power to fix the time for doing of an act must in our opinion carry with it the power to extend such period, depending upon whether the party in default makes out a case to the satisfaction of the court who has fixed the time. There is nothing in Section 148 CPC or in any other provision of the Code to suggest that such a power of extension of time cannot be exercised in a case like the one at hand. The argument that the power to extend time cannot be exercised where the act in question is stipulated in a conditional decree has not impressed us. We see no reason to draw a distinction depending on whether the prayer for extension is in regard to a conditional order or a conditional decree. The heart of the matter is that where the court has the power to fix time and that power is not regulated by any statutory limits, it has in appropriate cases the power to extend the time fixed by it. It is common ground that neither CPC nor the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act place any limitation on the power of the court in case like the one in hand."
15. Similarly in the case of Nashik Municipal Corporation Vs. R.M. Bhandari and Another, MANU/SC/0232/2016 : (2016) 6 SCC 245, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"15. In terms of Section 148 CPC court has the discretion to extend the time. The words "not exceeding thirty days in total" have been inserted by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999. Observing that if the act could not be performed within thirty days for the reasons beyond the control of the parties, the time beyond maximum thirty days can be extended under Section 151 CPC, in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0450/2005 : (2005) 6 SCC 344]. This Court in para 41 held as under: (SCC p. 372)
"41. 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 the court. The rigid operation of the section would lead to absurdity. Section 151 has, therefore, to be allowed to operate fully. Extension beyond maximum of 30 days, thus, can be permitted if the act could not be performed within 30 days for 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.""
16. Considering the aforesaid law position, it is clear that this Court has the authority to extend time for an act for which certain time period had been granted. The court in exercise of its jurisdiction can grant time to do a thing. However, the court has an inherent power within its ambit and jurisdiction to extend the time that was initially fixed by it for doing an act.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the order dated 26.07.2022 has been passed as an interim measure pending the arbitration proceedings for preservation of the property in question, it is considered appropriate by this Court to extend the time period for grant of deposit of amounts as directed by this Court. While coming to such conclusion, this Court is also guided by the fact that the petitioners have shown their genuineness and willingness to comply with the directions passed by this Court for depositing the amount of Rs. 43.50 crores, by seeking permission to deposit by way of security, original title deeds of immovable property belonging to one of their companies, having value of more than Rs. 50 crores.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court extends the time period earlier granted to the petitioners and hereby grants a further period of 45 days to the petitioners to deposit the amount of Rs. 43,50,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Crores Fifty Lacs Only) with the Registrar General of this Court; subject to the petitioners depositing the original title deeds for agricultural land measuring 12.9167 acres bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 20/20 consisting of Khasra Nos. 30/22/2(4-5), 33/2(4-12), 9(4-5), 10(4-12), 11(4-12), 12(3-18), 19(3-13), 20(4-12), 21(4-12), 22(3-8), 38//1(4-12), 2(3-1), 9(2-13), 10(4-13), 39//5(4-12), total admeasuring 62 Bigha 00, Biswa, situated in Village Budhanpur Mazra, District-North-West, Delhi. The said original title deeds may be deposited by the petitioners within four working days.
19. The present application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.