VATSALA SHANKAR BANSOLE Vs. SAMBHAJI NANASAHEB KHANDARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. None present for the respondent No. 2, though served. The notice was specifically issued to the respondents for final disposal of the matter and accordingly when the matter was taken up for final hearing on Monday last, by consent the same was adjourned for final hearing today, and accordingly the Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 were heard. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioners challenge the order dated 8th August, 2001, passed in Special Civil Suit No. 200 of 2000 under Exhibit 35-A by the trial Court. By the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for extension of time to deposit the amount which the petitioner was required to deposit under the decree dated 6th July, 2001 in the said suit consequent to the suit for specific performance of the agreement between the parties having been decreed in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) THE facts, in brief, relevant for the decision in the matter are that the petitioner herein filed the said suit for specific performance of the agreement between the parties in relation to plot No. 13-B situated in C. T. S. No. 601/b at Solapur. The same was contested by the respondent No. 1. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties decreed the suit by decree dated 6th July, 2001. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 was directed to execute the sale-deed of the suit property in favour of the petitioner on or before 8th August, 2001 on the petitioners depositing in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- minus costs of the suit and the earnest amount of Rs. 35,000/- within a month. It was also observed that in case of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the said amount as directed, the suit shall stand dismissed. It was further directed that if the respondents fail to execute the sale-deed on deposit of the amount as directed, the petitioner may apply to the Court for execution of the sale-deed and the petitioner would be entitled for possession of the property after the execution of the sale-deed. The petitioner did not deposit the amount within a period of one month from the date of the said decree but on 8th August, 2001, filed an application before the trial Court being Exhibit 35-A, contending that the petitioner was ill for about 15 days prior to the filing of the said application and, therefore, prayed for extension of one months time for deposit of the amount. The same was dismissed by the trial Court by observing that, "rejected since not tenable". Thereafter the petitioner filed another application on 11th September, 2001 seeking permission to deposit the balance amount. The same was also rejected by the trial Court observing that the Court was functus officio, in view of the judgment and decree dated 6th July, 2001 in the said suit.