R KOMALA Vs. MOHAMMAD IQBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of C. P. C. arises from the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.) Doddaballapur in Ex. No. 29/98 allowing the execution petition.

(2.) ). The suit for specific performance of contract namely suit No. 12/92 was decreed by the trial Court judgment and decree dated 26-11-1997. The decree-holder filed an application for execution of decree on 27-2-1998. The judgment-debtor took objection that the decree-holder had not deposited the sum of Rs. 25,000/- within the period and the application moved by the decree-holder for permission to deposit be rejected. It was alleged that the decree-holder had sworn a false affidavit that the judgment-debtor had failed to receive the said amount and sought permission to deposit the said amount and that amount having been deposited three months beyond the period. So, decree-holder had not complied with the Court's direction as such the application be rejected. The Execution Court considered the affidavit filed by the decree-holder and in the absence of any counter affidavit being filed by the judgment-debtor challenging the averments made in the affidavit, accepted the averments made by the decree-holder in the affidavit. The Court opined the affidavit of the decree-holder clearly revealed that the decree-holder was ready and willing to deposit Rs. 25,000/- on the date of filing of the execution application itself, but as the case was adjourned to 1-4-1998 and the decree-holder deposited the amount on 5-3-1998. The Court below opined that the facts in the affidavit clearly shows that there was no fault on the part of the decree-holder in performing his part of contract. The Court below further observed that even if an appeal (R. A. 13/98) is filed from the trial Court's decree and is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, but the judgment-debtor has not filed the copy of any order passed in the appeal (R. A. 13/98) to substantiate that the judgment and decree has been stayed in the said R. A. 13/98 preferred by the judgment-debtor. Therefore, it further opined as the decree-holder had deposited Rs. 25,000/- he is entitled to get registered the suit schedule property in his name by execution of decree and allowed the execution petition. The judgment-debtor has come up in revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.