- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The respondents has made this application and prayed that the decree be allowed to be executed since the defendant appellant has not complied with the order dated 30. 8. 1991, directing the defendant- appellant to deposit half of the decretal amount. According to the calcula tion of the respondents the decretal amount would come to about rupees 45 lacs and odd. Whereas the defendant-appellant has deposited only rupees twenty lacs. Accord ing to the claimant-respondents the amount deposited is short by about rupees two lacs.
(2.) THE defendant-appellant on the other hand filed an application dated 5. 2. 1996 contending that according to its calculation the amount is about rupees 27 lacs and odd and half of the said amount would be around rupees 13 lacs and odd. Whereas he has deposited rupees 20 lacs, being in excess by rupees seven lacs. In order to decide the question, a report was asked for from the learned Dis trict Judge, Meerut, who had" reported by an order dated 2. 9. 1994 that the amount deposited may be called in later and spirit non-compliance of the order-dated 30. 8. 1991, In the application dated 5. 2. 1996 the defendant- appellant had sought for rejection of the said report dated 2. 9. 1994. A perusal of the report dated 2. 9. 1994 reveals that it had negatived both the contention of the respondents and still then had held without proper calculation that the deposit was not in compliance of the High Court's order. The conclusion of the said report appears to be inconsistent with the finding made in the earlier part of the report. But at the same time it has not endeavoured to calculate the amount even prima-facie so as to ascertain as to whether half of the amount has been deposited or not.
(3.) THEREFORE, the concluding part of the said report being inconsistent with the earlier part of the report, the said report can not be relied upon. The main question for determina tion is as to whether there has been com pliance of the order dated 30. 8. 1991. From the affidavit filed in support of the applica tion dated 5. 2. 1996 by the appellant the cal culation of the total compensation payable in terms of the decree has been given. The respondents have its calculation in An-nexure-CA2 to the counter-affidavit, where in he has pointed out that the total amount payable is about rupees 45 lacs and odd. The same has also been reflected in the rejoinder- affidavit in para-3 Sri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel appearing on be half of claimant-respondents does not dis pute the figure so mentioned in para-3 of the rejoinder- affidavit and admits that the same represent correct translation of An-nexure-CA2 to the counter affidavit.;