BHANU Vs. MUNIMADAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being the judgment debtor in Execution No.11/2015 of the decree dated 26.11.2014, has knocked at the doors of the writ court for assailing the order dated 04.07.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure - B, made by learned II Additional Civil Judge, Kanakapura, whereby the petitioner's I.A.No.2 application for stay of execution proceedings filed under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, has been dismissed. After service of notice, the respondent/decree holder having entered appearance through his counsel, resists the Writ Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner banking upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Jeevan Vs. K.S. Venkata Raman, AIR 2017 SC 623 submits that the Executing Court could not have extended the period beyond what was prescribed by the decree itself for payment of balance of the consideration amount and thereby, could not have facilitated the payment thereof on 04.07.2017, the petitioner's application in I.A.No.2 filed under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act could not have been rejected and the reasons given for such rejection do not support the same. He also submits that the petitioner's Regular Appeal against the decree having been negatived, his R.S.A.No.2246/2017 is pending on the file of this court. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not have been made.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Executing Court ignoring the law laid down by the Apex Court could not have made the order dated 4.7.2017 extending the period for payment of the balance of the consideration, especially when the Memo seeking extension of time was made long after the expiry of the period prescribed by the decree itself; the Executing Court having posted the matter for the objection of the petitioner on 04.07.2017 on the Memo of the respondent/decree holder for permission to make the deposit, could not have straight away granted the permission making a provision for post-decisional hearing.