KARNAIL SINGH Vs. HARINDERPAL SINGH KHOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil revision has been filed against the order dated 25.3.1994 passed by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ferozepur, whereby an application under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act (for short 'the Act') moved by the petitioners for extension of time for the deposit of the balance sale consideration which they were required to deposit pursuant to partly decretal of their suit on 22.11.1993, was dismissed

(2.) THE petitioners having felt aggrieved against the partly decretal of their suit vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.1993, hence preferred an appeal which was, however, dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 21.1.1994. Thereupon, an application dated 24.3.1994 under Sections 148 and 151, CPC read with Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was moved by the petitioners before the trial Court seeking extension of time for depositing the balance amount of the sale consideration which they were directed to deposit within a period of 60 days in terms of the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1993. According to the petitioners, they could not deposit the balance of the sale consideration as one of their sisters allegedly fell ill and was hospitalised and also due to pendency of their appeal as they were under the bona fide impression that the balance amount could be deposited after the decision of their appeal. The trial Court, however, did not find both the reasons convincing and vide its impugned order dated 24.3.1994 dismissed the aforementioned application. As a necessary corollary, the suit filed by the petitioners which was partly decreed qua one-fourth share of respondent No. 1 also stood dismissed in terms of the conditional judgment and decree dated 22.11.1993. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the plaintiffs/petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) SH . Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the contents of the judgment dated 22.11.1993 whereby the suit of the petitioners was partly decreed, vehemently contends that since the trial Court has returned a finding of fact that the petitioners had paid Rs. 2,20,000/- as an earnest money for the entire land measuring 92 kanals and 18 marlas, but their suit has been decreed qua 1/4th share only, the excess amount of earnest money paid by them ought to have been adjusted by the trial Court towards the amount of total sale consideration which they were required to pay for the land measuring 23 kanals and 4-1/2 marlas. According to Shri Chhabra, had their suit been decreed for the entire land measuring 92 kanals and 18 marlas, the petitioners were certainly required to pay the remaining amount of total sale consideration of Rs. 2,92,162.50 but the same having been partly decreed qua 1/4th share only, the cost of the land measuring 23 kanals and 4-1/2 marlas which is Rs. 73,045/- only (approximately) was liable to be paid by the petitioners and which was definitely less than the total amount of earnest money of Rs. 2,20,000/-, already paid by them to respondent No. 1 for the total land.