GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. KURRAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit for possession by pre-emption was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on deposit of Rs. 24,859/- vide decree dated 4.11.1982 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sirsa. The deposit was to be made on or before 15.11.1982. The plaintiff-decree-holders deposited Rs. 24,850/- on 11.11.1982. The remaining amount of Rs. 9/- was deposited on 18.11.1982. The defendant-judgment-debtors raised an objection with respect to the short deposit of Rs. 9/- when this amount was deposited, time for deposit had already expired. The objection was rejected by the executing Court vide its order dated 25.5.1983, holding that "In view of observations of their lordships in the cases cited above, by the learned counsel for the decree-holder and also as there is bona fide mistake with the decree-holder for not depositing Rs. 9/- within time, I disallow the objections of the judgment-debtors." The said decree and judgment were confirmed in civil Revision No. 1437 of 1983, decided on 31.5.1983, by G.C. Mittal, J. Thus, the delay, if any, in depositing the short amount of Rs. 9/- was found to be bona fide and time for depositing the same could be extended and the deposit was found to be valid.

(2.) The executing Court, on the objection of the judgment-debtors found that since the deposit was short and the suit stood dismissed, no time for deposit of the short amount could be got extended. Consequently, it declined to execute the decree, vide its order dated 25.7.1983 which has been impugned in this revision-petition.

(3.) In view of the undisputed fact that objection of the judgment-debtors that there was a short deposit for which there was no bona fide mistake, stood rejected and the order rejecting it became final between the decree-holders and the judgment-debtors, the same could not be responed in revision in this Court. The executing Court cannot go behind the decree which has become final inter se the parties. In view of the reasoning adopted by the executing Court, the objection cannot be sustained. Once the executing Court, finding that the subsequent deposit of the short amount of Rs. 9/- was valid, had extended the time, which was impugned in CR No. 1437 of 1983 and confirmed by the High Court, the judgment-debtors are estopped from raising the same objection again.