RAMESH CHAND Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition is directed against the order of Executing Court, whereby the objection of the petitioner, in proceedings for execution of a decree for specific performance, to the effect that decree holder had not deposited the amount of sale consideration within reasonable time, has been rejected.

(2.) Respondent obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract to sell certain immovable property in the year 1999. Appeal was filed against that decree by the petitioner, who was defendant in the suit. That appeal was dismissed in the year 2005. Execution petition was filed in the year 2006. By that time, jurisdiction of the Court, which had passed the decree, changed. So, the execution petition was returned and it was presented to the Court, which exercised the territorial jurisdiction over the area, in which the subject matter of the decree was situated. Execution petition was presented to the said Court in the year 2007. It was in the year 2010 that the respondent-decree holder filed an application to deposit the amount of sale consideration. Objection was filed by the petitioner that request had not been made within reasonable time and, hence, the application was liable to be rejected. This objection has been overruled by the Executing Court by the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that amount is required to be deposited by the decree holder within reasonable time. He places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in support of his contention. The citation is - V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Vs. Alagappan and another, AIR 1999 SC 918 . The ratio of the judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel, is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In that case, the Court while passing the decree had fixed time for deposit of sale consideration. Money had not been deposited within the time fixed in the decree. Application for extension of time was moved five years, after the expiry of the time, fixed by the Executing Court. It was held by the Apex Court that application for extension of time should have been moved within reasonable time. In the present case, the Court decreeing the suit did not fix any time for deposit of money. Application was moved during the pendency of execution petition for depositing the money. Therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable.