Yeshoda and anr. Vs. K. Nagarajan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 302 & 376: [harjit singh bedi & j.m. panchal, jj] murder and rape - sentence on basis of circumstantial and medical evidence murder and rape of minor by accused proved trial court and high court awarded death sentence supreme court converted death sentence to sentence for rest of his life. section 302: death sentence - when case falls short of the rarest of rare case and sentence of 19 years seems to be inadequate. court should substitute it with sentence for rest of life of accused.sections 376 & 300: rape & murder - accused trespassed into complainants house and took away the child aged two years, raped and killed her - evidence of witnesses that accused was seen in vicinity of complainants house before and after said incident - apprehended by public and handed over to police -two chains worn by deceased child was recovered from his pockets, identified in court -no reason for witnesses to falsely implicate accused, a stranger to them - strands of fibre recovered from place of incident, matched with material of frock recovered at instance of accused - evidence that accused was paedophile with extremely violent propensities proved on record as he was convicted and sentenced for similar offences earlier -conviction of accused and sentence of death imposed on him was modified to sentence of imprisonment for rest of his life. order1. this special leave petition arises from the order of the division-bench of the karnataka high court dated june 19, 1996 in la. 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.2. 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 correctly exercised the discretion since the amount came to be deposited within three months from the date of dismissal of the application under section 28.3. the special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This special Leave Petition arises from the order of the Division-bench of the Karnataka High Court dated June 19, 1996 in LA. 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.

2. 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 correctly exercised the discretion since the amount came to be deposited within three months from the date of dismissal of the application under Section 28.

3. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.