JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - At the time of passing of the decree in favour of the plaintiff/decree-holder, petitioner herein, three months’ time was given to him to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant so as to enable him to execute and register the sale deed of the land in suit in his favour. Operative portion of the decree in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff is as under: “The defendant is directed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration within three months from today in terms of agreement to sell.” 2. The payment was not made within the stipulated time by the plaintiff, whereas on the other hand defendant/judgment-debtor had challenged the decree, operation of which was then stayed. Agreement to sell is of 9.5.2003. Decree was passed on 12.11.2008. Appeal preferred by the judgment-debtor against the decree was dismissed on 16.7.2010. Even after decision of the first appeal in favour of the plaintiff/decree-holder, balance sale consideration was not deposited by him. The lower court was right in coming to a conclusion that even if three months’ time for deposit of balance sale consideration is to be counted from the date of order of the first Appellate Court i.e. 16.7.2010, balance sale consideration was to be deposited by 16.10.2010. 3. Without complying with the orders of the trial court as well as of the first Appellate Court, the plaintiff only got awakened much later and made an application for extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration on 13.12.2011 i.e. after about one year and two months of passing of the decree by the first Appellate Court. 4. It is not the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that he approached the defendant to pay him the balance sale consideration but he ever refused to receive the same or to execute and register the sale deed in his favour. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on D.V. Paul Versus Manisha Lalwani [2011(3) Law Herald (SC) 1784] : 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 190 (Supreme Court) and Mohinder Singh Versus Satpal Singh 2010(3) PLR 185 (P&H) urging that the court has the discretion to enlarge the period of deposit when the time originally granted by the court has expired. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on D.V. Paul Versus Manisha Lalwani [2011(3) Law Herald (SC) 1784] : 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 190 (Supreme Court) and Mohinder Singh Versus Satpal Singh 2010(3) PLR 185 (P&H) urging that the court has the discretion to enlarge the period of deposit when the time originally granted by the court has expired. There is no dispute that the power given to the court is discretionary and is intended to be exercised to meet the ends of justice but in the present case, there is absolutely no material on the file to show that there was any impediment or obstacle coming in the way of the decree-holder to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated by the courts. When there is neither any material to justify delay on the part of plaintiff/decree-holder in seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration nor there is any just and reasonable cause to extend the time for such deposit, the contract between the parties came to an end and nothing in fact remained to be enforced. Reference in this regard may be made to Bhupinder Kumar Versus Angrej Singh 2009(3) SCC (Civil) 556 (Supreme Court) and Amarjit Singh Versus Jarnail Singh 2010(4) PLR 521 (P&H). The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India went even further in V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Versus C. Alagappan and another 1999(1) Apex Court Journal 248 (SC) and held that when two months’ time was granted to deposit the balance sale consideration and neither amount was deposited nor any application for extension of time was filed within two months and execution proceedings were started after five years, when extension of time was sought therein, it was held that no extension could be granted especially when there was no explanation forthcoming as to why balance sale consideration was not deposited as per the decree. 6. Even in the present case, as per the original decree dated 12.11.2008, balance sale consideration was to be deposited within three months. No steps were taken by the decree-holder. Even when the appeal was decided on 16.7.2010, no steps were taken by the decree-holder to deposit the balance amount. Rather, the execution petition was filed on 13.9.2010 wherein application for seeking permission of extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration was filed on 13.12.2011. 7. No steps were taken by the decree-holder. Even when the appeal was decided on 16.7.2010, no steps were taken by the decree-holder to deposit the balance amount. Rather, the execution petition was filed on 13.9.2010 wherein application for seeking permission of extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration was filed on 13.12.2011. 7. In its well-written impugned order dated 2.2.2012 (Annexure P-6) elaborating each and every aspect, the Executing Court has clearly held remissness on the part of the decree-holder, petitioner herein and has rightly rejected his prayer for extension of time in depositing the balance sale consideration of the decretal amount. 8. Sequelly, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Affirming the same, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————