AMAR NATH JAIN Vs. RAM PARKASH DHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is decree -holder's revision petition whose execution application has been dismissed by the executing Court, -vide impugned order February 16, 1979.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute and, in brief, are as follows. The Plaintiff -decree -holder filed the suit for the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated August 4, 1971, which was decreed by the trial Court on March 28, 1974. Therein, the trial Court passed the decree to the following effect:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the judgment -debtor submitted that since no time was allowed by the appellate Court while disposing of the appeal, it would be presumed that the decree -holder was entitled to re -deposit the amount within the same time, i.e., 30 days, which was allowed by the trial court. Since the amount was not deposited within the said period, the deposit made on October 29, 1976, by him, was belated. Moreover, the decree -holder never moved any application for extension of time the the appellate Court. Therefore, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the executing Court. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on Dattatraya v. Shaikh Mahaboob : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 750, Satvaji v. Sakharlal : A.I.R. 1914 Bom 132, Sulleh Singh v. Sohan Lal, 1975 P.L.J. 400 and Panni v. Daya Ram, 1985 2 P.L.R. 157.