ORDER :- This order shall govern the above two civil revision petitions. Aggrieved over the orders, two in number, made by the Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry, dismissing I. A. No. 860/2003 in O. S. No. 263/95 seeking rescission of the contract, pursuant to which, originally a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff, and allowing E. P. No. 24/2002, directing the defendants in the original suit in O. S. No. 263/95 to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff /respondent, the petitioner/5th defendant has broughtforth these civil revision petitions. 2. The Court heard the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner/ the 5th defendant and also the learned counsel for the respondent /plaintiff. 3. On hearing the submissions made by both sides, the following facts would emerge as admitted facts. The respondent /plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner herein /5th defendant and others. As per the averments in the plaint, the total sale consideration was Rs.9,06,250/- and the consideration originally paid was Rs.5,00,000/- and the balance of consideration payable by the plaintiff was found as Rs.4,06,250/-. On contest, a decree dated 21-6-2001 was passed in favour of the plaintiff. No time limit was fixed for payment of the balance of the sale consideration. On receipt of a copy of the decree and judgment on 31-7-2001, the plaintiff took notice on the 5th defendant/ the petitioner herein and others to receive the balance of consideration and execute the sale deed. Despite service, no reply was forthcoming from the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff filed E. P. No. 24/2002 seeking execution of the decree and on the same day, the lodgment schedule in O. S. No. 263/95 for payment of balance of consideration was also filed. Pending the same, the respondents/defendants filed I. A. No. 860/2003 on 24-2-2003 to rescind the contract originally entered into between the parties under Section 28(1) of Specific Relief Act wherein a counter was filed and the same was also pending enquiry. The plaintiff also filed E. A. No.133/2003 for issuance of chalan on 6-3-2003. Pending the same, the respondents/defendants filed I. A. No. 860/2003 on 24-2-2003 to rescind the contract originally entered into between the parties under Section 28(1) of Specific Relief Act wherein a counter was filed and the same was also pending enquiry. The plaintiff also filed E. A. No.133/2003 for issuance of chalan on 6-3-2003. The lower Court after hearing the parties regarding the maintainability of the E. P. which was raised by the defendant/petitioner herein, passed an order finding the E. P. maintainable and directed the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was also directed to deposit the balance of sale consideration within a week thereform. The said order was passed on 2-1-2004. While the matter stood thus, the application in I. A. No. 860/2003 filed by the defendants for rescission of the contract was dismissed by the lower Court by an order dated 4-8-2004. Aggrieved over the said orders, the 5th defendant has brought forth these civil revision petitions before this Court. 3A. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th defendant/revision petitioner would submit that in the instant case, the defendants filed an application for rescission of contract from the time of entering into agreement till the time of filing of the suit and also passing of the decree. The relief of specific performance of contract on the basis of the agreement of sale of the immovable property sought by the plaintiff stating that she is ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration all along, is a discretionary relief. After passing of the decree, an order of execution was passed in favour of the plaintiff which is also discretionary. In the instant case, no specific and reasonable time was fixed by the lower Court for the plaintiff to deposit the balance of consideration in whose favour the decree of specific performance was passed. The said decree was passed on 21-6-2001 and no steps have been taken so far. The lodgment schedule in O. S. No. 263/1995 was filed by the plaintiff for deposit of the balance of consideration as per the assessment of the lower Court. I. A. No. 860/2003 filed by the petitioner/5th respondent to rescind the contract was dismissed and the E. P. petition filed by the plaintiff was ordered, which are under challenge. 4. The lodgment schedule in O. S. No. 263/1995 was filed by the plaintiff for deposit of the balance of consideration as per the assessment of the lower Court. I. A. No. 860/2003 filed by the petitioner/5th respondent to rescind the contract was dismissed and the E. P. petition filed by the plaintiff was ordered, which are under challenge. 4. Added further learned counsel, it is true that notice was taken out by the plaintiff on 7-8-2001 but pursuant to the notice, no steps were taken by the plaintiff to deposit the amount. It is true that E. P. was filed on 6-2-2002 but except filing the lodgment schedule, no steps have taken and a reading of the decree passed by the lower Court would reveal that E. P. has got to be filed after making the deposit of the balance of consideration in Court. In the instant case, that has not been done. Further, while the defendants have filed I. A. No.860/2003 for rescission of the contract based on the suit, the lower Court has kept that application pending and ordered the execution petition earlier and later has dismissed I. A. No. 860/2003 on 4-8-2004. Apart from that, the above E. A. No. 133/2003 for issuance of chalan on 6-3-2003 has been filed specifically after the filing of I. A. No. 860/2003 on 24-2-2003 which was dismissed by the lower Court and E. P. 24/2002 was ordered granting a week's time for making deposit of the balance of consideration. In the instant case, the contract entered into between the parties originally, has got to be rescinded. Apart from that, in so far as the execution is concerned, the application should have been rejected since the plaintiff has not deposited the same within a reasonable time as one expected under the circumstances. Hence, both the orders of the Lower Court have got to be set aside and the civil revision petitions have got to be allowed. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied on the decision of this Court reported in Narasimhan v. Balammal (1988)2 Mad LW 335 and the decision of the Apex Court reported in V. S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. C. Alagappan AIR 1999 SC 918 . 5. Contrary to the above, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that in the instant case, it is true that a decree was passed on 21-6-2001. 5. Contrary to the above, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that in the instant case, it is true that a decree was passed on 21-6-2001. All the defence now put forth at this stage were also raised before the lower Court and the lower Court rejected the same and has passed a decree. It is also true that no time was fixed for payment of balance of consideration. But the plaintiff after getting a copy of the judgment in July 2001 immediately, issued a notice on 7-8-2001. The defendants including the petitioner/5th defendant received the notice and kept quiet for a long time. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file E. P. to see the execution of the decree, in E. P. No. 24/2002. On the very day of filing of the E. P., the plaintiff has also filed the lodgment schedule in O. S. No. 263/95 but no order has been passed in the Lodgment schedule since no Presiding Officer was there and that Court was not functioning. Apart from that, when E. P. was filed,the defendants/respondents did not appear for a long time and they took lots of adjournments for filing counter. Finally, the lower Court heard both sides and in view of the circumstances, the Court found it fit to order the E. P. and the same was also ordered. In the instant case, the plaintiff has acted diligently and has filed E. P. and the Lodgment schedule also which were not ordered for a long time. Pending the E. P., the defendants filed I. A. for rescission of the contract. The lower Court had allowed the E. P. and dismissed the I. A. Added further learned counsel, it is true that the plaintiff has to file the execution petition after the deposit of the entire amount. On the very day, when the E. P. was filed seeking execution on 6-2-2002, the lodgment schedule was also filed but, the lodgment schedule was not ordered by the lower Court for which the plaintiff should not be penalised. Apart from that, in the instant case, the Court after hearing both sides found that the first respondent/plaintiff has reasonably acted and ordered the execution petition. Once the execution petition has been ordered, the other I. A. filed by the other side has to be automatically dismissed and accordingly, the same has been dismissed. Apart from that, in the instant case, the Court after hearing both sides found that the first respondent/plaintiff has reasonably acted and ordered the execution petition. Once the execution petition has been ordered, the other I. A. filed by the other side has to be automatically dismissed and accordingly, the same has been dismissed. Added further learned counsel, the decisions now cited by the learned Senior Counsel have no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case and hence, the orders of the lower Court have got to be sustained. 6. The Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by both sides. In the instant case as stated above, on contest a decree for specific performance was passed by the lower Court against the petitioner/5th defendant and others. Part of the sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.9,06,250/- has already been even at the time of filing of the suit and the balance of consideration remaining to be paid was only Rs.4,06,250/-. It would be more appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the judgment of the lower Court dated 21-6-2001 made in O. S. No. 263/95, as follows. "The defendants 2 to 9 and 11 and 12 are directed to execute the sale Deed to the plaintiff in respect of the present suit property after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,06,250/-. Failing which the plaintiff is entitled to file an execution application praying this Court to execute the sale Deed in her favour after depositing the balance of sale consideration into Court" A reading of the above would clearly reveal that the trial Court did not stipulate the time within which the plaintiff should make the payment of the balance of sale consideration. Needless to say, if the time is specified for payment of balance of consideration at the time of passing of the decree, the plaintiff has to necessarily follow the same or even can ask for extension of time. But, in the instant case, no time limit was fixed and hence, it has got to be taken as a reasonable time. Therefore, the Court has to follow the preposition of law as put forth by the learned Senior Counsel. In the instant case it has got to be seen that the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case has acted as one expected in law. Therefore, the Court has to follow the preposition of law as put forth by the learned Senior Counsel. In the instant case it has got to be seen that the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case has acted as one expected in law. The decree was passed on 21-6-2001. The judgment and decree copies were received by her on 31-7-2001. On 7-8-2001, notice was issued by the plaintiff/decree holder to the defendants including the petitioner/5th defendant and it is not in dispute that they received the notice and they neither replied nor came forward to execute the sale deed. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff approached the lower Court on 6-2-2002 by filing an E. P. Thus, it could be seen that there was a delay of 3 or 4 months. While filing the E. P. on 6-2-2002, the Lodgment schedule was also filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 263/95 on the very day and the same is not disputed by the petitioner/5th defendant. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that only after depositing the said amount, E. P. has to be filed cannot be countenanced. In the instant case, the lodgment schedule has also been filed on the very day when the E. P. was filed but the same was not ordered by the Court. Learned counsel for the other side also brought to the notice of the Court that since there was no Presiding Officer, the lodgment schedule was not ordered. Therefore, since no order was passed in the lodgment schedule which was pending in the hands of the Court, the plaintiff cannot be found fault with. Apart from that, pending E. P; I. A. No. 860/2003 was filed by the defendants on 24-2-2003 and the lower Court on hearing both sides has dismissed the same. The decree was passed on 21-6-2001 and the plaintiff issued notice on 7-8-2001 and having received the notice, without taking any steps for performing the part of the contract, pending the E. P. which was filed on 6-2-2002, the defendants have taken out an application in I. A. No. 860/2003 on 24-2-2003. The decree was passed on 21-6-2001 and the plaintiff issued notice on 7-8-2001 and having received the notice, without taking any steps for performing the part of the contract, pending the E. P. which was filed on 6-2-2002, the defendants have taken out an application in I. A. No. 860/2003 on 24-2-2003. In such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the application for rescission requires only an order of dismissal for the simple reason that the E. P. was filed and the same was pending for execution of the decree and that I. A. was filed by the defendants after a long period even without filing a counter in the E. P. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that since the defendants could not succeed in the defence plea in the specific performance suit, they had made vain attempt in seeking to rescind the contract. At this juncture, it would be more appropriate to point out that the decision relied on by the learned Senior counsel reported in (1998)2 Mad LW 335 has no application to the present facts of the case. In that case, there is no dispute that the rescission of contract was sought for, for the reason that the decree holder has no reasonable time. On perusal of the judgment, it would clearly reveal that in that case, a decree was passed in the year 1976 and the execution petition was filed after a period of three years. In the instant case, the application has been filed within a reasonable time. Apart from that, the readiness and willingness was not shown even after passing of the decree as observed in that case; but in the instant case the Court has pointed out that it cannot be stated that the plaintiff was not ready and willing. At this juncture, it remains to be stated that the lodgment schedule filed by the plaintiff on 6-2-2002 in O. S. No. 263/95 has not been ordered. Since the plaintiff has not deposited the balance of consideration as per the order of the lower Court, it cannot be taken that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to deposit the balance amount but no order was passed by the lower Court. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be found fault with. Since the plaintiff has not deposited the balance of consideration as per the order of the lower Court, it cannot be taken that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to deposit the balance amount but no order was passed by the lower Court. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be found fault with. The other ruling reported in AIR 1999 SC 918 has no application to the present facts of the case since an extension was sought for, 5 years after the decree and the time was not extended for the payment of balance amount of consideration. In the instant case, neither time is specified nor extension is sought for and that the decision of the Apex Court does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. Though E. P. was filed on 6-2-2002, the same has been pending all along. After making an enquiry, the lower Court has passed an order on 2-1-2004, directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of consideration within a week therefrom which has also been deposited and the defendants have been directed to execute the sale deed as per the orders of this Court. At this juncture, it remains to be stated that the time what has got to be seen is whether reasonably or actually within which the E. P. has been filed. The date of the decree is 21-6-2001 and the Judgment and decree copy was received by the plaintiff on 31-7-2001. The notice was issued on 7-8-2001 and the same was also served on the defendants and the Lodgment schedule was made on 6-2-2002 in O. S. No. 263/95 and E. P. 24/2002 was filed on 6-2-2002. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the period in between these two points of time in any way cannot be stated as unreasonable. From 6-2-2002, the E. P. has been pending in the lower Court which has also been contested by the respondents/defendants. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered view that the lower Court is perfectly correct in directing the defendants to execute the sale deed and apart from that it is not a fit case where an order of rescission of the contract can be passed. Hence, the orders of the lower Court have got to be sustained and accordingly, the same are sustained. The civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.