C.A.V. ORDER The present revision petition has been preferred against an order dated 23.07.2009 passed in Title Suit No.230/2001 by the Sub Judge VII, Bhojpur, Ara. By the said order, he has rejected the petition dated 12.08.2004 filed on behalf of the plaintiff/Petitioner for directing the defendants/Opp.Parties to get the remaining consideration amount and execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff/petitioner. 2. Short fact of the case is that the plaintiff/petitioner had earlier filed a suit for specific performance of contract directing the defendants/Opp.Parties to execute sale deed in his favour in relation to a land measuring an area of 44 decimals, appertaining to R.S. Khata no.104, R.S. Plot No.731 situated in Mauja Bahuara, in the district of Bhojpur. It was claimed by the plaintiff/petitioner that earlier an agreement to sale was executed by defendants/Opp.Parties in favour of the petitioner for transferring the land mentioned herein above for a consideration amount of Rs.1, 50,000/-, out of which Rs.1, 40,000/- was paid by the plaintiff/petitioner and rest amount of Rs.10, 000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Since defendants/Opp.Parties were not executing sale deed, the plaintiff/petitioner had filed a suit vide T.S. No.230 of 2001, which was decreed ex parte on 21.04.2003 by learned Sub Judge VII, Bhojpur, Ara in the following terms: “it is therefore ordered that the suit is decreed ex parte in favour of the plaintiff with cost. The defendants are directed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the rest amount (Rs.10, 000) within 30 days from this order failing which this deed will be executed through process of the court. The plaintiff is directed to deposit Rs.10, 000/-(the rest amount) through challan in the court.” 3. The plaintiff/petitioner, thereafter deposited Rs.10,000/- through challan on 30.06.2003 and filed a petition before the court below on 12.08.2004 for issuance of notice to the defendants/Opp.Parties to get the amount and execute the sale deed. Consequenly on 20.08.2005, the learned court below directed for issuance of notice to the defendants along with a copy of order dated 21.04.2003. Defendants/Opp.Parties, thereafter, appeared before the court below and raised objection that the plaintiff/petitioner had not deposited the remaining amount within the time granted by the court. Consequenly on 20.08.2005, the learned court below directed for issuance of notice to the defendants along with a copy of order dated 21.04.2003. Defendants/Opp.Parties, thereafter, appeared before the court below and raised objection that the plaintiff/petitioner had not deposited the remaining amount within the time granted by the court. Finally, by the impugned order i.e. order dated 23.07.2009 the petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner dated 12.08.2004 was dismissed, which has been assailed by way of present revision petition. 4. Mr. Abbas Haider, learned counsel for the plaintiff/ petitioner has argued that once on petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner dated 12.08.2004, notices were already directed to issue by order dated 20.08.2005, there was no reason to reject the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner for directing the defendants/Opp.Parties to execute sale deed. He submits that in terms of order of the court below , remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was already deposited through challan and, as such, only requirement of the court below was to direct the defendants/Opp.Parties to execute sale deed in respect of the land in question in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. He has further argued that the plea, which was taken on behalf of defendants/Opp.Parties that the court below was not authorised to extend the time for depositing the remaining amount, is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1996) SCC 228; Yesoda & Anr Vs. K.Nagrajan. He has argued that in such a situation, it was necessary for the court below to extend the period for depositing the remaining amount. Sri D.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Abhinay Raj, learned counsel for the defendants/Opp.Parties, has opposed the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner. It was submitted that the judgment and decree, which was passed ex parte was specific on the point that the defendants/Opp.Parties were required to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner after receiving the rest amount within 30 days from the date of order, which was passed on 21.04.2003. He submits that it is not in dispute that the remaining amount in terms of Judgment/order of the court below was deposited on 30.06.2003 i.e. much beyond the time fixed by the court below and, as such, the prayer made by the plaintiff/petitioner in his petition dated 12.08.2004 for directing the defendants/Opp. He submits that it is not in dispute that the remaining amount in terms of Judgment/order of the court below was deposited on 30.06.2003 i.e. much beyond the time fixed by the court below and, as such, the prayer made by the plaintiff/petitioner in his petition dated 12.08.2004 for directing the defendants/Opp. Parties to execute sale deed was not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that since the plaintiff/petitioner had not deposited the rest amount in terms of Judgment and decree of the court below within the time fixed by the court, the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner stood dismissed. In support of his argument on this point, Sri Sinha, learned Senior Counsel has relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 1957 ; Sulleh Singh & Ors Vs. Sohan Lal & Anr. He has specifically referred to paragraph nos.11 and 13 of the said Judgment. For just decision in the matter, both paragraphs of the said Judgment are quoted herein below: - “11. This Court in Naguba Appa Vs. Namdev held that the directions given by the trial Court are mandatory under the provisions contained in Order 20, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court in Naguba Appa’s case (supra) said that mere filing of an appeal does not suspend the decree of the trial Court and unless that decree is altered in any manner by the court of appeal, the pre-emptor is bound to comply with that direction.” “13. In the present case, the lower appellate Court did not grant any stay to the plaintiff-respondents. In view of the fact that the plaintiff- respondents did not deposit the amount as directed by the trial Court on or before April 1, 1969, it became mandatory on the lower appellate Court by reason of the ruling of this Court in Naguba Appa’s case (supra) to dismiss the suit. The observations of this Court in Naguba Appa’s case that the pre-emptor is bound to comply with the directions of the trial Judge unless that decree is altered in any manner by a court of appeal do not mean that where the deposit is not made in accordance with the directions of the trial Court, the appellate Court can extend the time for payment. Thereafter, the lower appellate Court was in error in extending the time for payment till August 20, 1969.” 6. On the aforesaid ground, he has prayed for rejection of the present revision petition. 7. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the plaintiff/petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of contract with a prayer to direct the defendants/Opp.Parties to execute sale deed after accepting the remaining consideration amount. The suit proceeded ex parte and it was decided in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner by Judgment and decree dated 21.04.2003. While allowing the suit in specific terms, the court below had directed for depositing the rest amount within the specified time, as has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this order. Even though, there was specific direction to deposit the balance amount within 30 days, after expiry of the said period, the plaintiff/petitioner was not entitled to deposit the remaining amount without getting the period fixed by the court extended by filing an appropriate petition. From the record, it is evident that the plaintiff/petitioner never filed any petition for extension of time to deposit the rest amount in terms of judgment and decree, but steps were taken after expiry of time fixed by the court below. It is true that the remaining amount was deposited through challan after expiry of the time fixed by the court and thereafter, a petition was filed for issuance of notice and directing the defendants/opp.parties to execute sale deed and the said matter remained pending for several years and finally by the impugned order dated 23.07.2009, the petition dated 12.08.2004 filed by the petitioner stood dismissed. 8. So far Yesoda’s case (supra), on which reliance was placed on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner, is concerned, in the said case the issue was regarding power of the court to enlarge time. In the present case, the plaintiff/petitioner had never prayed in its petition dated 12.08.2004 for extending enlargement of time for depositing the balance amount but for a direction to defendants/Opp.Parties to execute sale deed. The plaintiff/ petitioner had not made any prayer for enlargement of time for depositing the money nor the Judgment and decree dated 21.04.2003 was earlier modified and, as such, the plaintiff/petitioner may not get any help from Yesoda’s case (supra). The plaintiff/ petitioner had not made any prayer for enlargement of time for depositing the money nor the Judgment and decree dated 21.04.2003 was earlier modified and, as such, the plaintiff/petitioner may not get any help from Yesoda’s case (supra). Similarly, the defendants/Opp.Parties may not get any help from Sulleh Singh’s case (supra), on which reliance was place by Sri D.K.Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants/Opp.Parties. The said case was in relation to claim of pre-emption, which is covered by Order 20, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present case is in relation to provision contained in Order 20, Rule 12-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In cases relating to claim of pre-emption, if the pre-emptor does not deposit the amount within the time fixed by the court, the suit stands dismissed, whereas there is no such specific clause under Order 20, Rule 12-A of the Code of Civil Procedure pertaining to decree of specific performance of contract for the sale or lease of immovable property. In the present case, fact remains that in terms of Order 20, Rule 12-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Sub Judge VII, Bhojpur, Ara, while allowing the suit ex parte in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, had fixed a time for depositing the remaining amount and, as such, without getting the fixed time extended, the plaintiff/petitioner was not entitled to make a prayer for directing the defendants/Opp.Parties to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff/petitioner himself had violated the terms and conditions imposed in the judgment and decree, particularly in a case, where judgment and decree was passed ex parte against defendants/Opp.Parties. 9. After careful examination of the impugned order, the Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Sub Judge VII has committed no error in rejecting the petition dated 12.08.2004 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. I do not find any merit in the present petition. 10. Hence, this revision petition stands dismissed.