SUSHILA DEVI JAIN Vs. MOHAMMAD SHAFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's application to revise an order passed by the Civil Judge, Bijnor on 1-11-1980. The brief facts necessary for the decision of this revision are that the plaintiff-opposite-party had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18-9-1974 in respect of some land. The consideration had been agreed at Rs. 57,307.20, out of which a sum of Rs. 12,000/-was paid by way of advance. It appears that the defendant-applicant did not put in appearance in the case and it was decreed ex parte on 5-12-1978. The operative part of the decree reads as under :-

(2.) THE plaintiff-opposite-party did not make the deposit as directed by order dated 5-12-1978 by 5-1-79. He, however, made an application for extension of time by two months to deposit the money. THE ground taken in that application was that on account of illness the plaintiff had not been able to arrange for the money. THE court allowed one month's time on that application for deposit of the money. THE plaintiff, however did not comply with that order and on 6-4-1979 moved another application in which it was stated that the plaintiff wanted to get the decree amended and also prayed for two months' time to deposit the money. On that application as well the court allowed him one month's time to deposit the money. That order was also not complied with. Several months after, to be exact on 13-2-1980, the plaintiff-opposite-party moved another application and it was stated therein that he had been under an impression that he was to deposit the amount only after the defendant had been served with the notice of the decree. It was on that application that the trial court passed the impugned order dated 1-11- 1980. It accepted the plaintiff's contention that he could have been under such an impression as alleged and approved the deposit of the money which had been made in the meantime on 13-2-1980. It is this order which the defendant-applicant seeks to be revised.

(3.) IF the decree in the present case is analysed, it would lead to the same result. I have reproduced the operative part of the decree above. It would be seen that it was in two parts. The first part placed an obligation on the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,307.20 in the court or to pay the same to the defendant, within one month from the date of the decree. It was clearly provided that in the event of his failure to do so the suit shall stand dismissed. The second part of the decree related to the obligation placed on the defendant. That part was to come into effect only when the plaintiff had complied with the obligation placed on him. Thus it was a self contained operative decree and time could not have been enlarged by taking recourse to Sec. 148, CPC.