SMT. NIRMAL Vs. ROZA UDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this revision the applicant -judgment debtor has challenged the order of the executing court dated 9.8.98. When this revision came up for admission, learned counsel for the Caveator -respondents made a statement before the Court that he was not interested in filing any counter -affidavit and this petition be disposed of finally on the material placed before this Court.

(2.) IT appears that the respondents filed Suit No. 432 of 1990 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.9.85 which was executed by the applicant in revision in their favour for a consideration of Rs. 6,20,000/ -. Out of this a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ - had already been paid by them to the applicant in revision on two different dates. The suit after context was decreed by the trial court by the judgment dated 29.5.92 and the revisionist was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff -respondent within one month after receiving the balance of consideration amounting to Rs. 5 lacs from the plaintiffs, failing which the plaintiffs were held entitled to get the sale deed executed through court.

(3.) ON account of difference of opinion a piquant situation arose and the matter was referred to a third Judge, namely, Hon'ble B.P. Singh, J., who passed the following order on 14.9.1992: - -