Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

YESHODA AND ANR. versus K. NAGARAJAN

Decided
25 September 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 4 · 1996 INSC 1106
Also cited as
  • (1996) 11 SCC 228 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This special Leave Petition arises from the order of the Divisionbench of the Karnataka High Court dated June 19, 1996 in I.A. No. 3 in RFA No. 225/84. The admitted position is that in the suit for specific performance the High Court has agreed with the suggestion of the respondent to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,80,000. The High Court has extended three months' time from April 21, 1994 for deposit of the amount. Special Leave Petition filed in this Court was dismissed on September 23, 1994 and within three months thereafter on January 17, 1995 the amount came to be deposited. An application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was filed to rescind the decree on the ground that the respondent had committed default in compliance of the conditional decree of the deposit of the amount. The respondent had filed an application for extension of time. The application for rescission of the decree was dismissed and the application for extension of time was allowed. Thus this special leave petition.

pp. 4–5, margin F

It is contended by Mr. Mahale, learned counsel for the petitioner, that after the expiry of the time prescribed by the court, the petitioner has a right to seek rescission of the decree for specific performance for non-compliance. The Court, therefore, has no power to enlarge the time. We find no force in the contention. Section 148, CPC gives power to the court to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of the court from time to time. Under those circumstances, the court has correcty exercised the discretion since the amount came to ·be deposited within three months from the date of dismissal of the application under Section 28.

p. 5, margin B

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 5, margin D