Court may extend time under a compromise order where the settlement terms have merged into the court's order.

Where a compromise is made the basis of a court order, the time fixed for depositing money becomes time allowed by the court itself, so section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not excluded merely because the period was stipulated in the settlement. The court may extend that time in an appropriate case to prevent manifest injustice and relieve against a forfeiture clause, although not ordinarily or for the mere asking. The earlier authority on automatic confirmation of sale was distinguished as arising in a different statutory setting. The court held that jurisdiction existed to extend time under the compromise order, and the contrary view was erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court has power under the Code of Civil Procedure to extend time fixed by a compromise order for depositing money, and whether such power can be exercised where the compromise terms have merged in the court's order.

Analysis: A distinction was drawn between cases where the statute itself compels a particular result and cases where the parties, by compromise, invite the court to pass an order in terms of their settlement. Where the compromise is made the basis of the court's order, the time fixed for deposit becomes time allowed by the court itself. In such a situation, section 148 does not stand excluded merely because the parties had stipulated the period in the compromise. The court may extend time in an appropriate case, though not ordinarily and not for the mere asking. Such power is available to prevent manifest injustice and to relieve against a forfeiture clause. The earlier decision relied upon was held inapplicable because it turned on a different statutory setting involving automatic confirmation of sale.

Conclusion: The court had jurisdiction to extend the time fixed under the compromise order, and the contrary view of the High Court was erroneous. The question whether extension should actually be granted in the facts was left open for reconsideration.

---