(1.) Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
(2.) An order allowing the decree-holder to make a deposit of the balance amount of the consideration has been challenged in this civil revision. Few facts should be necessary:
(3.) This application was stiffly opposed. The judgment-debtor objected on the ground that the decree-holder never had any money and that the decree-holder had failed to deposit the amount in terms of the decree before the decree-holder proceeded for execution. In this reply, the judgment-debtor pointed out that the decree-holder had to deposit Rs.26,000/- in the Court before they moved the Court for execution of the decree. It was clarified that there was a stay in the First Appeal preferred by the judgment-debtor. However, before the appeal was filed there was no stay and the decree-holder, therefore, should have deposited the amount even before the appeal proceedings commenced. It is thus commonly stated that unless the deposit of Rs. 26,000/- was made in the execution proceedings, the said execution proceedings were of no consequence and were liable to be dismissed. For the same reason, it was pointed out that because of the failure on the part of the decree-holder to pay the amount, the contract itself stands rescinded.It was reiterated again that the decree-holder had not made out my case as to why he had not deposited the amount as per the decree within one month and that he was not liable to be given any extension, much less under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. The judgment-debtors have also stated in the objection that they have filed an application for rescission of decree on 13-7-1995 Exh. 43 and that though the matter was heard and posted for orders, the same was not decided and it was only after this application was heard that the present application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act came to be made by the decree-holder. It was, therefore, alleged that there was no ground for extending the period to make the payment.