RAMDHANI RAM Vs. SITAL PRASAD RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner brought a title suit against the opposite party for specific performance of a contract. The suit was dismissed by the lower court, but the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate court allowed the appeal and ordered that the defendant should execute and register a sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff

(2.) The petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court against this order of the learned Subordinate Judge. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the decree in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, fixing the time for payment of the purchase money, is in the nature of a preliminary decree and the court has jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of the consideration money in an appropriate case even beyond the time fixed in the decree itself. In support of this proposition learned counsel relied upon Abdul Shaker Sahib v. Abdul Rahiman Sahib, ILR 46 Mad 148: (AIR 1923 Mad 284), where it was held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale the original court which passed the decree had control over the action and had full power to make any just and necessary orders therein including in appropriate cases, the extension of time limited by the decree for payment of the consideration money. In our opinion, the principle laid down in the Madras decision has no application to the present case, because the form of the decree made in the present case by the learned Subordinate Judge on 4-4-1955, is quite different from the decree which was the subject-matter of consideration in the Madras case. In the present case the order of the Subordinate Judge is that

(3.) In our opinion, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madhipura which is challenged in this case is a correct order and is not vitiated by any error of law or error of jurisdiction. Accordingly we dismiss this application. There will be no order as to costs.