DHYAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have come up assailing the orders of the Courts below, dated 13.12.1993, passed by the learned District Judge, Mainpuri and orders, dated 21.7.1993 and 16.4.1993 passed by the learned Munsif-Magistrate, Mainpuri, whereby the application of the respondent No. 3, for extension of time to deposit the decretal amount in respect of a preemption decree has been allowed and the same has been upheld by the learned revisional Court.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent No. 3 filed a suit against the petitioners for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell the suit property. The respondent No. 3 had executed a sale deed on 25.6.1984, in respect of plot No. 218, area 1 acre 10 decimals in favour of the petitioners for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. The said sale deed, which has been appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, contained recital to the effect that in case a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, is returned back within a period of six years the same would be acceptable to the petitioners and the land would be reconveyed to the respondent No. 3 by the petitioners.

(3.) The respondent No. 3, it appears, wanted the land to be reconveyed back to him for which purpose he instituted Original Suit No. 461 of 1991 for specific performance in his favour. The suit was decreed on 16.4.1993, and orders were passed directing the petitioners (defendants in the suit) to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 Sauji Ram (plaintiff). The learned trial Court while decreeing the suit has also recorded that one of the defendant witness D.W.1 had deposed before the Court that the defendants were prepared to reconvey the property provided the entire consideration money together with costs of the proceeding is paid to them. It was also directed that a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, would be paid by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioners along with 6% interest with effect from 25.6.1984 and time upto 31.5.1993 was granted by the learned trial Court for depositing of the said amount.