SMT. SOVA RAY & ANR. versus GOSTHA GOPAL DEY & ORS.
The clause in the compromise was not penal but deprived the respondent of a special advantage upon default. The High Court was not justified in granting extension for a grossly belated payment even if it had power, and consent orders cannot be altered except by further consent.
- Parties
- Appellant: Smt. Sova Ray; Respondent: Gostha Gopal Dey; Respondent: A.K. Mahapatra
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 18 March 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Granting Extension of Time for Payment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Partition Suit, Compromise Decree, Extension of Time, Penalty Clause, Consent Decree Modification
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Smt. Sova Ray
Appellant
Gostha Gopal Dey
Respondent
A.K. Mahapatra
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Granting Extension of Time for Payment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a court order based on compromise can be altered without consent of both parties
- 2 Whether a default clause in a compromise is penal and illegal
- 3 Whether the High Court was justified in granting extension for payment after delay
Ratio Decidendi
The clause in the compromise was not penal but deprived the respondent of a special advantage upon default. The High Court was not justified in granting extension for a grossly belated payment even if it had power, and consent orders cannot be altered except by further consent.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Order dated 31.8.1981 of Orissa High Court set aside
- Application by respondent for extension of time rejected
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment