RAMANUJAM Vs. PERIYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order made in REP. No. 237 of 2004 wherein the suit filed in O. S. No. 514 of 1983 for specific performance was put to execution.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel on either side.

(3.) PER contra, it is contended by the respondents that it is true that there was a direction in Letters Patent Appeal to deposit a further sum of Rs. 67,000/- on or before 18. 4. 2003, but it was deposited only on 19. 4. 2003. Since the last date 18. 4. 2003 was a holiday, he could not pay the amount in time and apart from that once there was a direction for the deposit to be made and it was done, there is no need for putting the petitioner/judgment debtor on notice. Under such circumstances, both the contentions raised before the Court below are erroneous and ordered to be rejected and rightly too. Hence the Civil Revision petition has to be dismissed.