SMT. PERIYAKKAL & OTHERS versus SMT. DAKSHYANI

SMT. PERIYAKKAL & OTHERS versus SMT. DAKSHYANI

Once compromise terms are made the order of the court, the court has jurisdiction under section 148 CPC to extend time in appropriate cases to prevent manifest injustice, even if the time for deposit was stipulated under the compromise.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. PBRIYAKKAL & Others; Respondent: Smt. Dakshyani
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 March 1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remanded.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Compromise Decree, Execution Proceedings
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Compromise Decree Execution Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. PBRIYAKKAL & Others

Appellant

Smt. Dakshyani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit stipulated in a compromise decree under s. 148 of the Civil Procedure Code

Ratio Decidendi

Once compromise terms are made the order of the court, the court has jurisdiction under section 148 CPC to extend time in appropriate cases to prevent manifest injustice, even if the time for deposit was stipulated under the compromise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remanded.

Orders

  • Order of Karnataka High Court dated 15th January 1979 set aside.
  • High Court directed to dispose of I.A. No. VIII in Execution Second Appeal No. 89/74 according to law.