Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) GANESH Prasad has filed this revision against the order dated 17th July, 1971, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Varanasi, dismissing his application Under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.
(2.) A suit wan filed for specific performance of a contract to recover the property. The suit was ultimately allowed in appeal. The appellate judgment dated 6th January, 1971 states: The Plaintiff -Appellants shall deposit the entire amount of Rs. 4,830/ - in court within a week of this date...in case, the Plaintiff -Appellants fait to deposit the entire amount mentioned above within the prescribed time, the Plaintiffs' appeal shall stand dismissed with costs throughout. The money was, thus, to be deposited by 31st (? 13th) January, 1971. On 13th and 14th January, 1971, the courts were closed, because of curfew. On 15th January, 1971, the court opened for some time, but closed again due to curfew in the second half of the day. 16th January was Saturday and 17th January was again a closed day being Sunday. The decree -holders presented the tender for payment of the money on January 15, 1971 and the money was Ultimately deposited on 18th January, 1971. According to judgment -debtor, the tender was made riot on the 15th but on the 16th January, 1971. Ob a consideration of the evidence led by; the parties, however, the court below has recorded a finding that the tender was made on the 15th January, 1971. The court below has disbelieved the evidence of the judgment -debtor on this point and has accepted the version of the decree -holders. Its finding does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction and has to be accepted. The court below held that the deposit in the circumstances mentioned above was a deposit in compliance with the appellate decree dated 6th January, 1971. It further held that the lender was made at the first available opportunity and as oh Saturday the banks were closed at 12 noon, the deposit of cash was also made at the first available opportunity. On these findings, it held that the case was covered by Section 4 of the Limitation Act and hence dismissed the application Under Section 28 of the Specified Relief Act.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Applicant contended that as Section 4 of the Limitation Act applied only to the cases off suits, appeals and applications and the period prescribed therein referred to the period prescribed by law and not fixed by a decree, the court below was in error in taking resort to Section 4 of the Limitation Act. I need not, however, go into the question of the applicability of Section 4 of the Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.F. Angadi v. Y.S. Hirannayya : AIR 1972 SC 239. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down that in a decree, similar to the decree before us, deposit made on the next practicable day was sufficient compliance of the decree. The words of the Supreme Court are: In such cases the act may, when the last day limited for the performance of it appears to be a day when the Court or its office is closed, be done on the next practicable day. The Supreme Court further held that when the court allowed the deposit to be made after the time limited by the decree had expired in the circumstances aforesaid, the court's action would not amount to any variance of the terms of the decree and the amount so paid would be a deposit of money made in compliance to and in accordance with the decree itself. The deposit in the present case, therefore, must be held to have been made in accordance with the decree and as such -the Plaintiffs would be entitled to execute the decree.;