Civil Appeal No 94 of 1972
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 23rd July 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Execution Second Appeal No 1941 of 1969
Uma Datta and Krishna Datta for the Appellant
SK Mehta PN Puri and MR Dua for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BAHARUL ISLAM J
In this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution the appellant is the victim of Court s craze for technicalities of law at the cost of justice
This Court 846 exercises its discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution to meet the ends of justice or to remove miscarriage of justice perpetrated in a case
This appeal arises out of an execution proceeding
The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be stated thus
The appellant was the plaintiff in a pre emption suit and Bot a decree
Respondent No I was the vendee and respondent No 2 who was the real brother of the plaintiff appellant was the vendor
The suit was for pre emption and possession in respect of some agricultural land
The trial court decreed the suit on payment of Rs 15500 as the price of the land and Rs 100 as the charges on account of registration and other charges of the deed
The appellant deposited the amount as directed by the Court
3 Respondent No I filed an appeal and the Additional District Judge who heard and disposed of the appeal dismissed the appeal with the modification directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs 183625 more in the trial court for payment to the vendee within 1541967 in case of failure the suit was directed to be dismissed
On 1441967 the appellant deposited Rs 183600 instead of Rs 183625
He however made good the short deposit of 25 paise on 28
101968 with the permission of the Court on the allegation that the omission to deposit 25 paise was due to bona fide mistake
Respondent No 1 filed a regular second appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
The High Court affirmed the decree of the first appellate Court but ordered the appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs 50000 for the improvements made to the land
The appellant was given three months  time to make the payment of the said sum of Rs 50000 failing which it was directed the suit would stand dismissed
The appellant deposited this sum to within the time limit
The appellant on 28101968 filed an execution case before the executing court to get possession of the suit land
The executing court issued notice to the judgment debtor respondent No 1 herein
The judgment debtor filed an application under order XX rule 141b of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground inter alia that the appellant was directed to make the payment of the sum of Rs 183625 within April 15 1967 but the appellant had deposited only a sum of Rs 183600 within the due date and the amount fell short of 25 paise and as such the execution proceedings 847 should be struck off
The appellant filed a rejoinder to the objection petition of the judgment debtor
His plea was that the short deposit of 25 paise was due to a bona fide mistake on his part but that the shortage was made good on October 28 1968 after obtaining necessary permission from the trial Court
The executing Court by its order dated February 1 1969 held that the short deposit of 25 paise was due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the degree holder and over ruled the objection of the judgment debtor taking the view that in the interest of justice the default on the part of the decree holder should be condoned
The Judgment debtor preferred an appeal in the Court of the IInd Additional District Judge who by his order dated October 24 1969 set aside the order of the executing court
He held that the provisions of order 20 rule 141b of the Code of Civil Procedure were mandatory and as such the suit should be deemed to have stood dismissed
He also held that the short deposit of 25 paise was not on account of mistake and the default could not be condoned
The appellant preferred a second execution appeal being Execution Second Appeal No 1941 of 1969 in the High Court
The appeal was however presented without a certified copy of the order of the executing Court
The appellant however made an application for dispensing with the filing of the certified copy
The High Court while admitting the appeal passed the following order E Admitted
Certified copy to be filed as soon as it is available        Sd RS Narula 251169
The appellant obtained the certified copy on June 3 1970 and filed it in the High Court on June 10 1970
The appellant filed an application on July 17 1970 under section S of the Limitation Act for the condonation of the delay
The second appeal came up for hearing on March 25 1971 before a single Judge
Respondent No I raised the preliminary objection that the appeal was barred by limitation
The objection was upheld by the learned single Judge asa result he dismissed the execution second appeal filed by the appellant herein
The appellant prayed for leave to appeal under Letters Patent
The prayer was also rejected
Hence this appeal by special leave
848 7
Shri SK Mehta learned counsel appearing for Respondent No I submitted that the execution appeal filed by the appellant in the High Court was incompetent as the certified copy of the impugned order of the lower appellate Court was not filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal
We do not find any substance in the submission for the reason as we have already stated above that the appellant was granted time by the High Court at the time of the admission and was allowed to file the certified copy as soon as it is available
 It is not the contention of the respondent that the copy was not filed at all nor it is his submission that the Court had no power to grant time to file the copy of the impugned order
As stated above the copy was obtained on 361970 and filed in court on 1061970 seven days after the copy was obtained
So he filed the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
There was no reason as to why the delay could not be condoned
That apart under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court has enough power to enlarge time from time to time
Section 148 provides Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code the Court may in its discretion from time to time enlarge such period even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired
 The power given to the Court under Section 148 is discretionary and is given for the purpose of securing the ends of justice in case of necessity
In our opinion the High Court committed an error in not adverting to and not exercising its powers under Section 148 CPC and in dismissing the appeal without going to the merit of the matter
Mr Mehta drew our attention to the second proviso to subrule of Order 41 rule 1 CPC as amended by Punjab Haryana and Chandigarh
The amendment is in the following words Provided further that the Court may permit the appeal to be filed with true copies duly authenticated by an advocate as correct This provision hardly helps him
It is not understandable how the counsel for the appellant could file true copies  when his client had not obtained the certificate copy of the order tn question
849 8
The next question for decision is whether the first execution A appellate Court was justified in holding that the amount directed to be deposited was not deposited as it fell short by 25 paise
Order 20 rule 14 CPC provides Decree in pre emption suits Where the Court decrees a claim to pre emption in respect of a particular scale of property and the purchase money has not been paid into Court the decree shall a specify a day on or before which the purchase money shall be so paid and c direct that on payment into Court of such purchase money together with the costs if any decreed against the plaintiff on or before the day referred to in clause a the defendant shall deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff whose title thereto shall be deemed to have accrued from the date of such payment but that if the purchase money and the costs if any are not so paid the suit shall be dismissed with costs
2        
Under order 20 rule 14 CPC the plaintiff decree holder in order to get delivery of possession of the land has to fulfil two conditions i he has to deposit in Court the purchase money together with the cost if any decreed against him and ii the deposit must be made on or before the date fixed by the Court
F Here the admitted position is that the appellant deposited the entire amount of purchase money together with the costs decreed against him less 25 paise within the time fixed by the Court and 25 paise too was deposited but beyond time
The executing Court held that the short deposit was 
due to a bona fide mistake while the executing appellate Court held that it was not due to any bona fide mistake but it was a default and thereby the executing appellate Court deprived the decree holder of the legitimate fruits of the decree he obtained in all the Courts
The finding of the first executing appellate Court that the non deposit could not be due to any bona fide mistake is absolutely untenable for the reason that while the 850 appellant has deposited in total Rs 1793600 from time to time as directed by the Courts there was absolutely no reason as to why he would not have deposited 25 paise unless it was due to a mistake
This was pre eminently a case in which the first execution appellate Court ought to have exercised its discretionary powers under section 148 CPC and accepted the delayed deposit of 25 paise 85 was done by the original executing Court
In the result we allow the appeal with costs set aside the orders of the High Court as well as the first execution appellate Court and restore the order of the original executing Court
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
Appellant plaintfull in the pre emption suit against the respondent vendee and Respondent 2 Vendor got a decree
As per the Trial Court decree the appellant deposited a sum of Rs 15500 as the price of the land and RB
100 u tho charges on account of registration and other expenses of the dead
Respondent I vendee filed an appeal and the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal with the modification directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs 1836 25 more in the trial Court for payment to the vendee within 1541967 in case of failure the suit was directed to be dismissed
On 1441967 the appellant deposited Rs 183600 instead of Rs 1836 25
He however made good the short deposit of 25 Paise on 28101968 with the permission of the Court averring that the omission to deposit 25 paise was due to bona fide mistakes
The vendee held a regular second appeal and the High Court while dismissing the appeal directed the appellant to deposit within three Months  time a further sum of Rs 500 for the improvements made to the land
The appellant deposited this sum within the time limit
In the execution case filed before the executing court the respondent vendee Sled an application under order XX Rule 141b raising an objection to the maintainability of the Execution Petition on the plea that short deposit of 25 Paise within 1541967 amounted to deemed dismissal of the suit itself and that the default could not be condoned
The executing court by its order dt
121969 overruled the objections
The Judgment debtor s appeal before the II Additional District Judge was accepted holding that the provisions of order XX Rule 141b CPC were mandatory the short deposit was not due to bona fide mistake and the default could not be condoned
The appellant preferred a second execution appeal before the High Court without a certified copy of the order of the executing Court but with an application for exemption from filing the certified copy
The appellant was directed on 25111969 to file the 845 certified copy as soon as is available
Tho appellant obtained a certified copy A on June 3 1970 and filed it in the High Court on July 17 1970
The appellant filed r an application on July 17 1970 under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay
The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent No 1 that the appeal was barred by limitation was accepted by the learned single Judge and the Execution second appeal thus stood dismissed
Hence the appeal after obtaining special leave of the Court
Allowing the appeal the Court  HELD 1
The High Court committed an error in not adverting to and not exercising its powers under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in dismissing the appeal without going into the merit of the matter
Under section 148 CPC the Court has enough power to enlarge time from time to time
The power given to the Court under section 148 is discretionary and is given for the purpose of securing the ends of justice in case of necessity
848 C D E F 850 B 2
Under order XX rule 14 CPC the plaintiff decree holder in order to get delivery of possession of the land has to fulfill two conditions  i he has to deposit in the court the purchase money together with the cost if any decreed against him and ii the deposit must be made on or before the date fixed by the Court
849 E F However in view of the deposit of 25 Paise having been made under the orders of the court after the acceptance of the bona fide mistake the finding of the first executing appellate court that the non deposit could not be due to any bona fide mistake is absolutely untenable for the reason that while the appellant has deposited in total Rs 1793600 from time to time as directed by the Courts there was absolutely no reason as to why he would not have deposited 25 paise unless it was due to a mistake
Indeed the appellant is the victim of Courts craze for technicalities of law at the cost of justice
845 H 849 GH 850 A