SATYA DEVI Vs. RATTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 4.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya rejecting objections raised by the judgment debtor/objector petitioner herein to the execution application filed by the respondents herein.

(2.) In a suit for specific performance of contract, the trial court dismissed the suit whereas the First Appellate Court passed a decree for specific performance vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.1983. Regular Second Appeal No. 243 of 1984 came to be dismissed by this Court and Special Leave Petition also resulted in dismissal on 21.1.2003 by the Honourable Supreme Court. The petitioner herein who is judgment debtor, did not execute the sale deed as directed. The respondents/decree holder, consequently initiated execution proceedings. The petitioner filed objections to the execution taking a number of pleas. The main objection raised by the petitioner was that the money has not been deposited by the decree holder within the stipulated period of two months. Executing Court has observed that money could be deposited at any time. It is contended that this finding of the executing Court is erroneous.

(3.) I have perused the decree dated 9.11.1983. It is true that the observation of the Executing Court that the money could be deposited at any time is according to law. However, a perusal of the judgment and decree dated 9.11.1983 clearly indicates that the amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs. 29,000.00 was required to be paid within two months at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. The First Appellate Court while passing the decree, issued a composite direction to the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed and obtain its registration and simultaneously to the decree holder to pay the consideration at the time of execution/registration or sale deed within two months. Since the sale deed has not been executed within the stipulated period, there was no obligation upon the decree holder to deposit the money as there was no such direction. Executing Court has, however, proceeded to execute the decree do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. In view of the above, find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. . <span class='hidden-print'> ( <a href='Judgement.aspx?q=Indian Civil Cases]2008]1]&p=1&pos=47&qType=4'>Previous</a> <a href='Results.aspx?q=Indian Civil Cases]2008]1]&p=1&rsv=C&qType=4'>Hitlist</a> <a href='Judgement.aspx?q=Indian Civil Cases]2008]1]&p=1&pos=49&qType=4'>Next</a> ) </span>