1974 PLP 191 (SCMR)

The explanation furnished by the petitioners for their failure to deposit the money within the agreed time was that they had tendered the money to the National Bank of Pakistan on the 8th of June, 1971, but the Bank refused to accept the money as the notes tendered by them had already been demonetized and they could not be accepted. In these circumstances the Courts were right in holding that the time limit could not be extended by them. We are unable to agree with the contention that Order XX, rule 14,,read with section 148 of the Lode of Civil Procedure permitted the Court to extend the time in a matter. The relevant provisions are as follows Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure: "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 discre tion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired." The relevant provisions of Rule 14 of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure: "(1) Where the Court decrees a claim to pre‑emption in respect of a particular sale 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 (b) 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." It is evident from these provisions that they apply to a case where the Court has fixed the time. In the present case the time was fixed as the result of an agreement between tie parties, and all things remaining the same such time could not be altered without the consent of all the parties. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has failed to cite before us any decision to the contrary. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Civil Petition No. 256 of 1972 is from another order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' revision petition on the ground that they had filed a revision petition earlier and had suppressed this fact from the Court. The earlier revision petition was also from the impugned order of the first appellate Court refusing to extend the time for depositing the aforesaid pre‑emption money. In view of our decision in Civil Petition No. 570 of 1972, this petition is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.