SHRI BHAJAN Vs. DHARAM PARKASH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition, the petitioner/judgment debtor, challenge, the orders borne in Annexure P-9, rendered on 23.08.2017 whereby, the learned executing, dismissed, the application preferred before it for recalling of orders rendered by it, on, 28.10.2016, whereunder, the learned executing Court, allowed, the decree holders' application, for, permission being granted to them, for hence depositing the outstanding sale consideration of Rs. 8,050/-, before its establishment.

(2.) Since, the impugned order, is, a sequel of orders, rendered, on 28.10.2016, hence, the validity, of, the order pronounced earlier, to, the pronouncement, of, the impugned order, is to be tested along with the validity, of, the impugned pronouncement. The preferment of the apt execution petition before the learned executing Court, was, a sequel to hence rendition, of, an affirmative decree, of, specific performance, of agreement to sell, upon, civil Suit No.156/1 of 1997, by the learned Sub Judge, Nalagarh. The apt operative portion, of the apposite decree, for specific performance, as, rendered upon the aforesaid civil suit, hence makes a clear and graphic display, of the JD/defendant No.2 being directed, to, execute the apt registered deed, of, conveyance, vis-a-vis, the suit property, with the plaintiffs/decree holders, subject to payment of balance sale consideration, within, a period of one month, commencing since 27th March, 2000. The affirmative pronouncement made upon Civil Suit No.156/1 of 1996, by the learned Sub Judge, Nalagarh, was, assailed by the aggrieved defendants, by, theirs preferring Civil Appeal No. 40-NL/13 of 2000 before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, yet, thereon also the learned First Appellate Court, rather, pronounced a verdict bearing absolute concurrence, with, the verdict pronounced, by, the learned trial Judge concerned. The aggrieved defendants, thereafter proceeded to assail, the concurrent pronouncements, made, by both the learned Court(s) below, by theirs preferring a Regular Second Appeal before this Court, whereupon, this Court also made an order of dismissal, of the second appeal, and, obviously hence the defendants, rather unsuccessfully espoused, their grievance(s), before, the learned First Appellate Court, and, thereafter before this Court. However, as aforestated, with this Court also dismissing RSA No. 201 of 2001, thereby, hence its affirming the pronouncement(s), made, by both the learned courts below, thereupon, the apt condition precedent comprised, (a) in the factum, of, the decree holders being facilitated, to, derive the benefits of the decree, only upon theirs, tendering the outstanding sale consideration, within one month, from the date of the pronouncement, as, made by this Court, on 13.07.2011 upon RSA No. 201 of 2001, was rather enjoined to be meted its strictest compliance, and, conspicuously, within, one month commencing since 13.07.2011. The aforesaid non defeasance clause would obviously, upon, its infringement, hence beget the causality of the decree holders being deprived, of, the benefits of the apt concurrent affirmative pronouncement(s) recorded, upon, Civil Suit No. 156/1 of 1996.

(3.) Be that as it may, the decree holders, despite, a period of one month, elapsing, since, this Court making a pronouncement, upon, RSA No. 201 of 2001, neither begot compliance, with, the mandate of the non defeasance clause, nor they proceeded, to, before the period of one month hence elapsing, since the making, of, a pronouncement by this Court, upon, RSA No.201 of 2001, hence prefer an application, cast under the provisions of section 148 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, for hence seeking enlargement or extension, of, time as prescribed this Court, while, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit. section 148 of the CPC reads as under:-