, ,

SECTION 148: THE HIDDEN GEM OF THE CPC (LAW IN 100 WORDS)

This is a guest post in our series titled ‘Law in 100 words’ where we try to simplify complex legal provisions/concepts & put them crisply.

One of the hidden gems that often go unnoticed is- Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “The Code”). This section provides for the ample discretionary power of the court to enlarge time not exceeding 30 days in total, either one-time straight or in a phased manner, for “doing of any act” under the Code (NOT under any other law, for instance, the Limitation Act, 1963). This extension is granted even when the original period, whether fixed or prescribed, for doing an act under the Code, has expired. It was only after the 1999 Amendment to the Code that the period for enlargement of time was fixed to a maximum limit of 30 days in total so as to curtail procedural delay caused by any party to the suit or proceeding

For example, when a court imposes costs under the Code on a party and the period to pay the same is “fixed” by the court, then even after the expiry of the said “fixed” original period to pay the costs, the party may make an application under Section 148 of the Code seeking enlargement of time showing just and sufficient cause to the court, subject to a maximum period of 30 days in total. The Court then may, subject to its discretion, enlarge time to pay the costs. However, the “might and magic” of Section 148 of the Code is not to be used as a delay tactic by either party.

The delay beyond the already enlarged 30- days’ period in total may be condoned under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code provided there are reasons beyond control of the party or there is resultant failure of justice.

Further References/ Sources/ Readings:

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 148.
  • Nashik Municipal Corporation vs. M/S. R.M. Bhandari & Anr. [AIR 2016 SC 1090].
  • Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India [AIR 2005 SC 3353].
  • Gowri Ammal vs Murugan & Ors. (2006) 2 MLJ 729.

[1] Guest post by Advocate Ms. Prerna Dhingra

Leave a Reply

Comments (

0

)