HET RAM Vs. SANTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of 587 days delay in filing the revision petition. The principal ground taken in the application is that the impugned order dated 10th February, 1999 was passed exparte at the back of the judgment-debtor-petitioner (for brevity, 'JD-petitioner') and the time was extended by giving two months more to the decree-holder respondents (for brevity, 'DH-respondents') to deposit the sale consideration.

(2.) FEW facts which are necessary to decide the controversy raised in the present petition are that the suit for specific performance of the contract filed by the DH-respondents, was decreed by the Civil Judge in their favour on 12th November, 1998, directing them to deposit the sale consideration within a period of three months in the Court so that the sale deed be executed in their favour. However, the DH-respondents were not able to comply with the terms of the decree by depositing the sale consideration within a period of three months granted by the decree which necessitated for extension of time by filing an application. Admittedly, no notice of the application was given to the JD-petitioner and at his back, the time was extended by two months on 10th February, 1999 by the Impugned order. It is alleged in this application that the JD-petitioner did not have the knowledge about the order dated 10th February, 1999 which left him thinking that the terms of the decree have not been complied with and, therefore, the decree became unexecutable. However, when he received the notice of the execution application, then the objections were filed on 4th November, 2000 on the advice of the counsel. It was pleaded that the order dated 10th February, 1999 was in contravention of the principles of natural justice at it was passed at the back of the JD- petitioner It has further been averred that when the counsel of the High Court at Chandigarh was consulted, it was advised that the order has to be challenged on the revisional side and the executing Court would not be within its jurisdiction to go beyond the decree and order dated 10th February, 1999. Therefore, the present revision petition was filed in which the objection with regard to limitation was raised and it was found that it was delayed by 587 days.

(3.) I have heard Shri Ashok Verma, learned counsel for the JD-petitioner and Shri Suresh Monga, learned counsel for the DH-respondents.