SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) Written arguments have been submitted by both the parties which have been taken on record.
(2.) A suit being Original Suit No. 633 of 1992 was filed by the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents against the predecessors-in-interest of petitioners for specific performance. The relief claimed in the suit was that in view of the agreement to sell, the sale-deed be executed. The Suit was filed on 3.7.1992 and the same was decreed on 15.7.1996. On 9.8.1996 when the First Appeal being First Appeal No. 179 of 1996 was filed the effect and operation of the decree dated 15.7.1996 was stayed. The First Appeal which was filed by the defendants was ultimately dismissed on 10.12.2002. A second Appeal being Second Appeal No. 258 of 2003 was filed before the High Court and was dismissed on 5.3.2003.
(3.) In the mean time, on 7.1.2003, the plaintiff decree holders (the respondent here) filed an Execution Case No. 1 of 2003. This Execution Case was also filed with an application praying that the plaintiffs be allowed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/-. Of course, in the Execution Application prayer was made that the sale deed in pursuance of the decree dated 15.7.1996 to be executed in favour of the plaintiff decree holders. The petitioners moved an objection on 11.9.2015 in the pending Execution Case saying that since Rs. 15,000/- had not been deposited till the date of the filing of the objection dated 11.9.2015 the decree dated 15.7.1996 had become ineffective and infructuous and, therefore, the Execution Case be dismissed. The decree holders objected to the objection which was ultimately dismissed on 31.8.2017, forcing the petitioners to file a Revision. When the Revision was dismissed on 7.5.2018, the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed.;