1 ca 13661.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13661 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7903 OF 2011 The Municipal Corporation of City of Jalgaon .. Applicant Versus Pradeep S/o Nivruttinath Kulkarni .. Respondent Shri P. R. Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri K. C. Sant, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . This is an application seeking extension of time to deposit the amount as directed by this Court vide order dated 11.10.2011. 2. The present applicant had filed Writ Petition No. 7903/2011 against the order passed by the Trial Court directing the petitioner/present applicant to deposit half of the suit claim in the Court within six weeks. After hearing the respective parties the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 2 ca 13661.11 11.10.2011. However, the time to deposit the amount as directed by the Trial Court was extended and four (4) weeks time to deposit the amount was granted from 11.10.2011. The said time lapsed on 08.11.2011. 3. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that cheque of Rs. 6,00,000/- was drawn on 03 rd November, 2011. But the same could not be deposited. The applicant as such seeks one weeks time to deposit the said amount. 4. Shri Sant, the learned counsel for the non applicant opposes the application and submits that Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a complete code in itself. The scheme as envisaged in Order 37 is such that time cannot be extended. If within the time specified the amount is not deposited, then the plaintiff is entitled for the judgment forthwith. In the present case, as the applicant failed to deposit the amount on or before 08 th November, 2011, the right is accrued in favour of the plaintiff and the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time. The plaintiff is entitled for the judgment. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was granted much more time initially by the Trial Court and lateron by this Court, still the 3 ca 13661.11 applicant failed to comply with the same. No further time can be granted. The learned counsel further contends that if this Court is inclined to grant time, then the applicant should be directed to deposit the same cheque which it had drawn to tender before the Trial Court. As that also would not be in total compliance of the order. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Vishwanath Satwaji Gaikwad Vs. Laxman Abaji Kavale reported in 2000 Mh. L. J. 498. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the order. Vide order dated 11.10.2011 while dismissing the Writ Petition No. 7903/2011 filed by the present applicant, this Court had granted four weeks time to the applicant to deposit the amount. It appears that cheque of Rs. 6,00,000/- was drawn on 03 rd November, 2011, but the same is not deposited prior to 08 th November, 2011. To enlarge the time is the discretion of the Court. Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not lay down any restriction on the applicability of the said provision to the summary suits. Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to all sorts of suits. The Court U/Sec. 148 is empowered to enlarge the time even after the 4 ca 13661.11 specified time has expired. The Section 148 of the C. P. C. runs as under : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1. ....... 2. ........ 148. Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for ding of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, [not exceeding thirty days in total,] even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. 6. In view of the clear phraseology of Sec. 148 there cannot be any debate about its applicability even after the expiry of the time specified. 7. It is seen that the cheque of Rs. 6,00,000/- was drawn on 03 rd November, 2011 as can be seen from the copy of the cheque. The said cheque is also a bankers cheque. This shows the bonafides on the part of the applicant. The applicant is also Municipal Corporation and autonomous body. In view of the fact the bonafides are writ large, I am inclined to exercise the 5 ca 13661.11 discretion U/Sec. 148 of the C. P. C. and grant one weeks time to the applicant to comply the order dated 11.10.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 7903/2011. It is no gain saying that the applicant should be directed to deposit the very same bankers cheque, I am only extending the time to deposit the amount by one week. The judgment in a case of Vishwanath Satwaji Gaikwad referred supra would not be applicable to the present case as it lays down that the inherent powers of the Court U/Sec. 151 cannot be exercised if the suit is dismissed U/O 9 Rule 5. Here it is not question of exercise of inherent powers, but the powers U/Sec. 148 of the C. P. C. 8. In view of the above the civil application is allowed. The time to deposit the amount as directed by this Court vide order dated 11.10.2011 in Writ Petition No. 7903/2011 is extended by one week from today. The civil application is accordingly disposed of. Authenticate copy be given to the applicant to act upon. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11