KAMALUDDIN Vs. CHHOTELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-plaintiff has challenged an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1974 dt. 28-2-1977, in this Civil Revision filed under S.115 of the Civil P.C.

(2.) Both the original applicant and the non-applicant are dead, and their legal representatives have already been brought on record. The short facts, which give rise to this revision, are that applicant-plaintiff Kamaluddin filed a suit against the non-applicant-defendant for specific performance of a contract, which was decreed on 13-10-1971 to the effect that if non-applicant-defendant Chhotelal deposited Rs. 1,300/- as principal and Rs. 267.50 p. as costs of the litigation in the Court by 12-1-1972, then he shall continue to be the owner of the house. But, if he failed to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated date, then the plaintiff-applicant Kamaluddin shall pay Rs. 200/- to the non-applicant-defendant, who shall then execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff shall also get the possession of the house.

(3.) In compliance with the terms of the decree, non-applicant, defendant Chhotelal deposited an amount of Rs. 1,300/- in the Court on 10-1-1972, but he failed to deposit the costs of Rs. 267.50. He submitted an application before the lower Court praying that his counsel failed to inform him that he was required to deposit the amount of Rs. 267.50 p. also as the costs of the suit, and that was the reason why he could not deposit the amount within the stipulated time. But, when the application of the plaintiff was brought to his notice, he immediately deposited that amount on 20-9-1972 and prayed for the condonation of this delay and extension of time. The lower Court allowed the prayer of the non-applicant-defendant and condoned the delay, and also extended the time up to the date of the actual deposit of the costs. The applicant was aggrieved by this order : hence, he preferred an appeal in the District Court. The Additional District Judge, Vidisha, dismissed this appeal of the applicant and, hence, by this petition the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked.