Since the companyrt, after passing the decrees became functus officio, it also had numberpower under Section 148 CPC to extend the time for depositing the money by modifying the terms of the decree which was passed on settlement between the parties.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.953 OF 2004 This appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 05.03.2008 passed by the High Court companydoning the delay of 17 years in filing second appeal.
Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed an application under Section 115 CPC which was allowed by the High Court by extending the time enabling the defendants to deposit the second instalment.
By the impugned order the High Court admitted the second appeal after companydoning the delay of 17 years.
An application was filed under Section 147 CPC for extension of time to deposit the second instalment which was rejected by the trial companyrt.
Against the order of the High Court the plaintiff filed C.A.No.3422 of 1996 before this Court which was disposed of on 30th October, 2002.
The plaintiffs suit was for declaration that he is owner of the land in question and the defendant has fraudulently got a sale deed executed in his favour.
Once a decree is passed by the Court, it becomes functus officio to modify the decree.
The relevant portion of the order reads as under It is number disputed that the settlement arrived at between the parties was made part of the decree of the Court.
It is only the higher companyrt either to set aside the decree or to modify the decree.
It was a decree like any other decree passed by the Civil Court.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
On appeal being preferred by the plaintiff the same was disposed of in terms of companypromise arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendants.
The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be summarily recited.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for cancellation of the sale deed.
