ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SATNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The plaintiff is in revision against the order of the Appellate Court declining his application for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration in terms of the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2013.

(2.) The facts as narrated before me are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell, which was partly decreed by the trial Court directing the return of earnest money with interest. The plaintiff, however, assailed that decree by way of appeal and was successful in getting his primary prayer of execution of the contract by registration of the sale deed. Such kind of decree is passed under Order 21 Rule 12-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that at the time of decreeing the suit for specific performance, the Court must give specific time for the purpose of deposit of the decreetal amount. In this case, the Court had also given two months time to the plaintiff to deposit the decreetal amount which was to expire on 03.07.2013. Admittedly, the plaintiff had deposited the decreetal amount on 11.07.2013, which was beyond the stipulated date of 03.07.2013 and, therefore, his prayer for extension of time has been declined by the lower Appellate Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that decree was passed on 03.05.2013, certified copy was applied on 04.05.2013, prepared on 17.05.2013 and delivered on 18.05.2013. It is submitted that period spent for the purpose of obtaining the certified copy of the decision has to be excluded for the deposit of the decreetal amount. The alternative argument has been raised that the Appellate Court had the jurisdiction to extend the time in terms of Sec. 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which also deals with a situation where the amount has to be deposited. The third argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that even otherwise there is no application filed by the respondents for rescinding the contract under Sec. 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short 'the Act'). Had the application been filed under Sec. 28 of the Act for rescinding of the contract then the matter would have been altogether different because it would have prejudiced the right of the respondents but in the absence of any such application and the fact that the time has been spent by the petitioner, in obtaining certified copy, which has to be excluded from the total time granted by the Court, the application moved by 11.07.2013 is within limitation. As a matter of fact, the petitioner filed an application with an impression that the period of two months have already expired. Otherwise, he could have also deposited the amount after excluding the time in obtaining certified copy. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Harbans Singh Grewal Vs. Puran Singh (deceased) by his L.Rs., 1991(1) RRR 332 which deals with power of Court under Sec. 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure to extend time for depositing amount. It was held that if there is no direction in decree that on failure to deposit the suit of a plaintiff the suit would be dismissed, the time can be extended. In this case also, the decree passed by the Court is not conditional decree except granting the stipulated time. There is no condition attached with the decree that in case the amount is not deposited within two months, decree passed would become inoperative and the suit shall be deemed to be dismissed.