CHITHAMBARAN PONNAPPAN Vs. VISWAMBARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is the Judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 37 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Alappuzha, has raised two questions in this revision. They are:

(2.) A decree for specific performance was passed in the case in favour of the present respondent, who was the plaintiff in the suit on 27.02.1986. One of the conditions in the decree was that the balance of sale consideration, due to the present revision petitioner should be deposited within one month from the said date. There was no such deposit made till 20.03.1997. When the question of executing the decree arose, the revision-petitioner took the stand that the decree has become unenforceable in consequence of the failure on the part of the plaintiff in depositing the balace of the purchase money within the time granted by the Court and in that respect there was failure on the part of the plaintiff himself to comply with the directions in the decree. The Court below, as per the impugned order, discarded the said contention and found that though the deposit was belated, the delay was condonable. This was done without a written application on the part of the plaintiff to condone the delay.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent, who relied on the decision in Joseph George v. Chacko Thomas (1992 (1) KLT 6) in support of his contention that as long as the decree is not rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and the Court has the power to extend the time and that this can be done even without a written application in that behalf.