JUDGMENT 1. We think there are good reasons for the decree-holder, the Appellant before us, objecting to the document executed ostensibly according to the terms of the solenamah entered into between the parties on the 24th February 1902. The parties agreed by the solenamah on which the decree was based that the Defendant, judgment-debtor, should execute within one month a kobala in favour of the decree-holder, the value of the land being assessed at Rs. 665, the judgment-debtor should further pay to the decree-holder another sum of Rs. 50 and that on default the decree-holder would be entitled to execute the decree as if it were for a sum of Rs. 715. 2. Evidently there were disputes between the parties subsequently to this decree; and at last the decree-holder applied on the 27th November 1903 for the execution of the decree for the sum of Rs. 715. The judgment-debtor objected on the ground that he had already executed the kobala and paid in Rs. 50 in Court. It appears that the parties agreed that no evidence should be given on any question raised between them. 3. The Munsif who was not the Munsif before whom the original proceedings were held, decided that the kobala was not proved. The judgment debtor appealed, and on his appeal it has been held there was no question as regards the execution of the kobala and that the only question related to indemnity. 4. We are not satisfied that the judgment of either of the lower Courts is correct and we are further of opinion that the procedure followed was highly irregular. 5. The proper course for the parties would have been to proceed regularly as if a decree for specific performance was made. Either party ought to have submitted to the Court a draft of the kobala to be served on the other side, the other side having the right to object to the terms of the draft. Then the matter should have been taken up by the Court or by a proper officer of the Court to settle the terms of the kobala and then the person who was to execute the document should have executed it and filed it in Court and the execution should have been attested by persons known to the recipient of the kobala or by other respectable persons. 6. 6. This was not the procedure followed: and we accordingly direct that the parties should have the opportunity to proceed according to the directions given above. 7. A regards the period of one month stated in the solenamah, we think that as the kobala was executed the parties should be considered as having done what could be done within one month's time notwithstanding that it was not properly done. We do not think one month's time was of the essence of the contract in the sense that one party was incapacitated in carrying out the terms of the contract after that period. We, therefore, direct that either party should be entitled to move in the matter within one month from this date and have the document executed. 8. Let the record be sent down at once. We make no order as to costs.