ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2005, passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Ujjain, in Case No. 18-N2004, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of time for depositing amount has been dismissed, the present revision petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract against respondent No.1, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 18-N2004, and was contested by the respondent. 3. After framing of the issues case was fixed for recording of evidence. During the course of evidence a document was tendered in evidence, which was taken on record, with a short direction that admissibility of the document shall be considered at the time of final order. In the final order the document was admitted in evidence on a condition that petitioner shall pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty, which was calculated as Rs. 78,500/-. It is also directed that the judgment will come in operation only after depositing amount before signing of the decree. On 1.9.2005 i.e. next day of passing of judgment an application was filed by the petitioner, wherein prayer was made to permit petitioner to deposit amount within a period of one month. The case was taken up on the same day by the learned Court below and it was directed that since the deficit amount of stamp duty and penalty was not deposited by the petitioner before signing of the decree, therefore, the learned Court below dismissed the application vide order dated 1.9.2003, on the ground that decree has already been signed. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment was passed on 30.8.2005, wherein, the time was given to the petitioner to deposit the stamp duty and penalty before signing of the decree. On the next day the learned Court below passed the order whereby it was held that since amount was not deposited before signature on decree, therefore, the application is dismissed. 5. On the next day the learned Court below passed the order whereby it was held that since amount was not deposited before signature on decree, therefore, the application is dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 176 of M.P. Civil Court's Rules, 1961, (which shall be referred hereinafter as Rules), it is the duty of the Court to draw the decree and cause a notice to the parties and their pleaders of decree being drawn up (in form No. 211 on Schedule II), which shall be exhibited on the notice board stating that such decree has been drawn up and that it may be perused by the parties or their pleaders within three days from the date of posting of the notice. 6. Learned counsel submits that the judgment was passed on 30.8.2005 and the decree was signed on 1.9.2005. Learned counsel submits that as per Rule 176, of the Rules, the learned trial Court was required to serve the notice to the petitioner or his counsel and or to exhibit on the notice board, which has not been done in the present case. 7. From perusal of the record and Rule 176, it is evident that after drawing of the decree the objections can be raised by any of the parties of the suit within a period of three days. In this case no time was granted for raising the objections. Similarly no notice was pasted on the notice board inviting the objections. In the circumstances, learned Court below committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner whereby petitioner prayed that he be allowed to deposit the amount in view of this the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.9.2005 is set aside, with a further direction to the petitioner that petitioner shall deposit the requisite amount of Rs. 78,500/- within a notice of eight weeks and after deposing the amount, the judgment and decree passed by Court below shall remain in force. 8. With the aforesaid observations the petition stands disposed of.