Judgment 1. These civil revision petitions have been filed to set aside the common order, dated 23.04.2014, made in E.A.No.21 of 2008 in E.P.No.34 of 2008 in O.S.No.129 of 2004 and I.A.No.407 of 2013 in O.S.No.129 of 2004, on the file of I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli. 2. Since the issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. In both the civil revision petitions, the petitioners are the defendants 2 to 5, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.129 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli. 4. The facts leading to filing of the civil revision petitions are as follows:- (i) The respondent filed O.S.No.129 of 2004 against the petitioners and the first defendant, viz., T.G. Navaneetha Krishnan, for specific performance of agreement of sale. The petitioners did not contest the suit. An ex-parte decree was passed on 01.09.2005. In the said decree, no time limit was fixed for payment of balance sale consideration. On the other hand, three months time was stipulated for the petitioners to execute the sale deed, as per the agreement of sale, dated 09.04.2000, failing which, the respondent is entitled to execute the decree and get the sale deed executed as per law. (ii) On 29.09.2005, the petitioners filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree, dated 01.09.2005. The said petition was numbered only in the year 2007, as I.A.No.875 of 2007. On 24.07.2007, the respondent filed lodgement schedule for payment of balance sale consideration. On 21.04.2008, the respondent filed E.P.No.34 of 2008 for execution of sale deed, as per decree, dated 01.09.2005. The Execution Court, on 27.07.2008, returned the lodgement schedule filed by the respondent on the ground that I.A.No.875 of 2007 filed by the petitioners, to set aside the ex-parte decree is pending. (iii) The petitioners filed petition to rescind the agreement of sale as per Section 28 of Specific Relief Act. The said petition was numbered as E.A.No.21 of 2008. The petitioners filed I.A.No.277 of 2012, for transferring E.A.No.21 of 2008 to Trial Court as a petition under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can be decided only by the trial Court under Original Jurisdiction. The said petition was numbered as E.A.No.21 of 2008. The petitioners filed I.A.No.277 of 2012, for transferring E.A.No.21 of 2008 to Trial Court as a petition under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can be decided only by the trial Court under Original Jurisdiction. As both E.A.No.21 of 2008 and I.A.No.277 of 2012 were pending in the same Court, the Court held that the E.A. will be decided only in the original Court. (iv) The respondent filed I.A.No.407 of 2013 in O.S.No.129 of 2004 for extension of time to deposit the amount and issue of Challan to deposit the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. (v) On 03.10.2013, the petitioners withdrew I.A.No.875 of 2007 filed by them to set aside the ex-parte decree, dated 01.09.2005. (vi) The learned First Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, by the common order, dated 23.04.2014, dismissed E.A.No.21 of 2008 filed by the petitioners and allowed I.A.No.407 of 2013 filed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the common order, dated 23.04.2014, the petitioners have filed the present civil revision petitions. 5. Heard Mr. H. Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Vinayak, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the following reasons: (i) Even when there is no time limit fixed by the Court, for depositing the balance sale consideration, the respondent ought to have deposited the same within a reasonable time. (ii) The reasonable time is a question of fact, as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The suit for specifically enforcing the agreement of sale must be filed within three years. Therefore, the respondent ought to have deposited the amounts within three years. (iii) The respondent has filed I.A.No.407 of 2013 seeking extension of time to deposit of balance sale consideration after nearly eight years of the date of decree, dated 01.09.2005. (iv) The respondent filed I.A.No.407 of 2013, after three years of petitioners filing E.A.No.21 of 2008, seeking to rescind the agreement of sale. The respondent did not immediately come forward to deposit the balance amount. The pendency of application to set aside the ex-parte decree will not be a ground for the respondent for not depositing the balance sale consideration. While the said application was pending, the respondent filed E.P.No.34 of 2008, to execute the decree, dated 01.09.2005. The respondent did not immediately come forward to deposit the balance amount. The pendency of application to set aside the ex-parte decree will not be a ground for the respondent for not depositing the balance sale consideration. While the said application was pending, the respondent filed E.P.No.34 of 2008, to execute the decree, dated 01.09.2005. (v) The application to set aside the ex-parte decree was taken on file only in the year 2007 and the respondent has not given any explanation for not depositing the balance sale consideration from 01.09.2005 till 27.04.2007. (vi) The respondent did not take any steps, when the lodgement schedule was filed on 24.07.2007, returned on 27.07.2008. (vii) The learned Judge committed an error by misreading the Judgment reported in AIR 1972 SC 1826 [Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., Vs. Haridas Mundhra and Others]. (viii) The learned Judge completely ignored all the relevant equitable considerations, like escalation of the property value, hardship, loss and unfair advantage to the decree holder. 7. To substantiate this arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following Judgments: (i) Kumar Dhirendra Mullick and Others Vs. Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd. [ 2005 (9) SCC 262 ] (ii) Rajinder Kumar Vs. Kuldeep Singh and Others [2014 (2) CTC 93] (iii) V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Vs. C. Alagappan [1999 (I) CTC 409] (iv) Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., Vs. Haridas Mundhra and Others [ AIR 1972 SC 1826 ] (v) G. Kesavan Vs. B.C. Raman [ 2013 (4) LW 626 ] (vi) Kaikhushroo Pirojsha Ghiara Vs. C.P. Syndicate Ltd. Nagpur [AIR (37) 1950 Federal Court 8] (vii) Sahu Munna Lal and Others Vs. Mahtab and Others [AIR 1928 Allahabad 360 (1)] (viii) Bhupinder Kumar Vs. Angrej Singh [2010 (2) LW 1027] (ix) Chanda (dead) through LRs. Vs. Rattni and Another [ 2007 (3) CTC 773 ] (x) Saradamani Kandappan Vs. S.Rajalakshmi and Others [2011 (4) CTC 640] (xi) Dhavamani Vs. Radhkrishnan Chettiar [ 2004 (1) LW 760 ] 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that in the decree, dated 01.09.2005, no time limit was fixed for depositing the balance sale consideration. When no time limit is fixed, the balance sale consideration has to be deposited within a reasonable time. As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the time limit is three years. The respondent filed lodgement schedule on 24.07.2007, for deposit of balance sale consideration. When no time limit is fixed, the balance sale consideration has to be deposited within a reasonable time. As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the time limit is three years. The respondent filed lodgement schedule on 24.07.2007, for deposit of balance sale consideration. The respondent also filed E.P.No.34 of 2008 to execute the sale deed. The lodgement schedule was returned by the Court on 27.07.2008 on the ground that I.A.No.875 of 2007 filed by the petitioners to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 01.09.2005, was pending. The petitioners filed the said application on 29.09.2005 itself, but the same was numbered only in the year 2007 as I.A.No.875 of 2007. While the said application was pending, the petitioners filed E.A.No.21 of 2008, to rescind the contract i.e., agreement of sale. In order to avoid technical objections, the petitioners filed I.A.No.407 of 2013 for issue of Challan for depositing the balance sale consideration on the basis of lodgement schedule filed by him on 24.07.2007. The petitioners on 03.10.2013, withdrew I.A.No.875 of 2007, which was filed by them to set aside the ex-parte decree, dated 01.09.2005. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is no delay on the part of the respondent in depositing the balance sale consideration. The learned Judge has given valid reason for dismissing E.A.No.21 of 2008 and allowing I.A.No.407 of 2013 and prayed for dismissal of both the civil revision petitions. 9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following Judgments: (i) Nagarathinam Vs. Velammal [ 2000 (1) MLJ 712 ] (ii) Kumar Dhirendra Mullick and Others Vs. Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd. [2004 (5) CTC 468] (iii) P. Rangasamy Vs. Avinashi Gounder and Another [ 2009 (3) MLJ 1267 ] (iv) Yeshoda and Another Vs. K. Nagarajan [ 1996 (11) SCC 228 ] (v) P. Baskaran Vs. P. Soundararjan [ 2012 (4) CTC 247 ] (vi) Chitambaran Ponnappan Vs. Viswambaran and Another [AIR 2001 Kerala 205] 10. I have carefully perused all the materials on record, the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent and their arguments. 11. P. Soundararjan [ 2012 (4) CTC 247 ] (vi) Chitambaran Ponnappan Vs. Viswambaran and Another [AIR 2001 Kerala 205] 10. I have carefully perused all the materials on record, the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent and their arguments. 11. In the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent, the following principles are laid down: (i) As per Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, the Courts have power to extend the time for depositing balance sale consideration as well as to rescind the contract. (ii) When no time limit is fixed to deposit the balance sale consideration in the decree, then the plaintiff must deposit the same within a reasonable time. The reasonable time is a question of fact. (iii) As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, time limit in respect of specific performance of agreement of sale is three years Therefore, three years is a reasonable time. (iv) The Courts have power to extend the time for depositing the balance sale consideration on application filed under Sections 148 and 151 of CPC. It is further held that the Courts can extend the time even without any application. 12. Applying these principles, it is seen from the record, the respondent has taken steps to deposit the amounts within three years from the date of decree, dated 01.09.2005. The respondent has filed lodgement schedule on 24.07.2007 and also filed E.P.No.34 of 2008, on 21.04.2008. It is seen that the petitioners have filed the application on 29.09.2005, to set aside the ex-parte decree, dated 01.09.2005. The said application was numbered only in the year 2007, as I.A.No.875 of 2007. The said application was pending till 03.10.2013, when the petitioners withdrew the said application. The lodgement schedule was returned on 27.07.2008, as the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree was pending. While the said application to set aside the ex-parte decree was pending, the petitioners filed E.A.No.21 of 2008, on 09.09.2008, to rescind the contract. In order to avoid any technical objections, the respondent filed I.A.No.407 of 2013 for issue of Challan to deposit the amounts. This fact clearly show that the respondent has taken steps on 24.07.2007, to deposit the balance sale consideration. This is within three years from the date of decree, i.e., on 01.09.2005. He also filed E.P.No.34 of 2008, on 21.04.2008. In order to avoid any technical objections, the respondent filed I.A.No.407 of 2013 for issue of Challan to deposit the amounts. This fact clearly show that the respondent has taken steps on 24.07.2007, to deposit the balance sale consideration. This is within three years from the date of decree, i.e., on 01.09.2005. He also filed E.P.No.34 of 2008, on 21.04.2008. Orders in favour of the respondent directing him to deposit the balance sale consideration was not passed due to the action of the petitioners only i.e., pending I.A.No.875 of 2007 to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said application was dismissed on 03.10.2013, as the petitioners have withdrawn the same. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners, to contend that the respondent has taken eight years to file the application for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration. It is only, the petitioners, who have protracted the matter by filing an application to set aside ex-parte decree and kept it pending for eight years. 13. Applying the principles laid down by the Judgments referred to above, it is clear that the respondent has taken steps to deposit the balance sale consideration within a reasonable time. The learned Judge has properly considered the provisions of Law and the principles laid down in the Judgments cited before him. The learned Judge considering the materials and Law in the proper perspective, has passed the impugned order. The learned Judge has exercised the discretion judicially by extending the time to deposit the balance sale consideration and dismissing the application filed by the petitioners to rescind the contract. There is no material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Judge warranting interference by this Court. 14. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.