JUDGMENT : K. Ramakrishnan, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the court below in I.A. 835/2014 and I.A. 1793/2016 in O.S.453/2011 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent filed Ext.P1 suit as O.S. 451/2011 on the file of the Sub Court, North Paravur, claiming return of advance amount, which was said to have been paid on the basis of an agreement entered into between the parties in respect of sale of a property belonging to the defendants, who is the petitioner herein. The matter was referred to adalat and in the adalat it was settled evidenced by Ext.P2, whereby the parties have agreed that an amount of Rs. 12,55,000/- has already been paid and has been acknowledged and if further amount of Rs. 8,45,000/- is paid by the plaintiff on or before 23.07.2012 and get the document executed by the defendant. It is also mentioned in the agreement that, if the defendant had violated the condition, then the plaintiff can move the court for appropriate reliefs to execute this document. Thereafter the plaintiff filed I.A.835/2014 before Sub Court, under Section 28(3) of Specific Relief Act for accepting the balance consideration of Rs. 7,15,000/- on the allegation that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid on 19.07.2012 and another sum of Rs. 80,000/- was paid during August, 2013 and thereafter he issued a notice dated 14.02.2014 allowing the defendant ten more days time to execute the sale deed. He had sent a reply with false contentions, that prompted him to file the application by depositing Rs. 7,15,000/- and directing the defendant to execute the document. If he fails to execute the document requesting the court to execute the document. The respondent entered appearance and filed Ext.P4 counter denying the allegations and also contending that he had received an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, but denied the payment of Rs. 80,000/- claimed by the plaintiff in that application. He had also contended that the since the time expired as provided in the award, the petitioner has no right to file the application, but he can only ask for the return of the amount as claimed in the suit, the right to file claim for execution of document is lost to the petitioner. He had also contended that the since the time expired as provided in the award, the petitioner has no right to file the application, but he can only ask for the return of the amount as claimed in the suit, the right to file claim for execution of document is lost to the petitioner. Earlier the court below passed Ext.P5 order without considering the contentions and directed the plaintiff to produce draft copy of the sale deed and which was verified and approved and posted for registering the document and produce the original sale deed executed on 5.7.2016. That order was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.P.(C)1618/2016 before this court and this court by Ext.P6 judgment disposed of the same directing the court below to consider the objections and pass a reasoned speaking order and remitted the case to the court below. 3. It is thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. 1793/2016 under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act for rescission of contract and court below had considered both the applications together and disposed of the same by separate orders evidenced by Exts.P7 and P8, allowing the petition filed by the plaintiff to receive the balance amount and execute the document and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for rescission of contract and both these orders have been challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition. Since the respondents have entered appearance through Sri. K.R. Vinod, this court felt that the petition can be admitted and disposed of on merit itself today. 4. Heard Sri. C.P. Peethambaran, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.R. Vinod, counsel for the respondent. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in order to attract section 28(3) of Specific Relief Act, the person filing the application has to remit the amount within the time provided in the decree or he will have to seek time to deposit the amount and if time is extended by the court, then the amount will have to be deposited within that time. In this case, the respondent herein had deposited the amount only along with the petition and there is dispute regarding the amount payable as well. So it cannot be said that the amount was deposited within time provided in the decree or within the time extended by the court. In this case, the respondent herein had deposited the amount only along with the petition and there is dispute regarding the amount payable as well. So it cannot be said that the amount was deposited within time provided in the decree or within the time extended by the court. He had also contended that after hearing both sides on the basis of the submission made by the counsel for the respondents herein, the court below had passed an order dated 13.2.2015 directing the plaintiffs to deposit the balance disputed amount also and that was complied by them and permission to deposit the balance amount cannot be said to be a permission granted as contemplated under section 28(1) read with Section 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act. So the court below was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the time was extended and thereby the petitioner is entitled to get the sale deed executed. So the court below had committed illegality in passing the order. Having filed the application, for rescission of contract by the petitioner as I.A. 1973/2016, proper enquiry should have been conducted in that application before disposing the same, that was also not done by the court below. 6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that, it will be seen from the order itself that when the defendant had raised a contention regarding the amount payable, accepting the willingness of the plaintiffs to pay the amount passed an order dated 13.2.2015 to deposit the balance amount also, thereby the court had extended the time for depositing the amount and rightly held that the amount was deposited within the time extended and the order passed by the court below is perfectly justifiable and there is no illegality or impropriety committed by the court below warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is an admitted fact that respondents herein as plaintiffs filed Ext.P1 suit O.S.453/2011 on the file of the Sub Court, North Paravur for return of advance amount said to have been paid on the basis of an agreement for sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of property belonging to the petitioner herein. 7. It is an admitted fact that respondents herein as plaintiffs filed Ext.P1 suit O.S.453/2011 on the file of the Sub Court, North Paravur for return of advance amount said to have been paid on the basis of an agreement for sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of property belonging to the petitioner herein. It is also an admitted fact that the matter was referred to adalat and the matter was settled in the adalat and a decree has been passed on the basis of settlement evidenced by Ext.P2 whereby the defendant in that suit who is the petitioner herein had agreed to sell the property on receipt of an additional amount of Rs. 8,45,000/-, over and above the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- paid by the plaintiffs on various occasions including the amount received for discharging the liability of the bank. As per the agreement, the balance amount of Rs.8,45,000/- has to be paid on or before 23.7.2012, and on receipt of the amount, the defendant has to execute the document and if the document is not executed, then plaintiff was given an option to get the document executed through court. According to the respondents, they have paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- subsequent to Ext.P2 award during 2012 and the defendant wanted some more time to execute the document and thereafter again during August 2013 another amount of Rs. 80,000/-was also paid and time was extended for execution of the document. But thereafter since the defendant did not execute the document, he sent a notice, for which the defendants sent a reply containing false allegation, that prompted the plaintiffs to file Ext.P3 application as I.A.835/2014 under section 28(3) of Specific Reliefs Act. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner entered appearance and filed Ext.P4 objection raising the contention of maintainability of the application as well as disputing the amount said to have been paid after executing Ext.P2 award, but he had admitted the receipt of Rs. 50,000/-, but denied receipt of Rs. 80,000/- subsequently paid as claimed in the petition. But the court below without considering the objections, passed Ext.P4 order which was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.P.1618/2015 before this court and this court by Ext.P6 judgment set aside the order and remitted the same to the court below for passing appropriate orders after considering the objections raised by the petitioner herein. But the court below without considering the objections, passed Ext.P4 order which was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.P.1618/2015 before this court and this court by Ext.P6 judgment set aside the order and remitted the same to the court below for passing appropriate orders after considering the objections raised by the petitioner herein. It is thereafter the petitioner filed I.A.1793/2016 under Section 28(1) of Specific Relief Act for rescission of the contract which was also considered by the court below along with Ext.P3 application and allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs for executing the document and rejected the application filed by the petitioner for rescission of the contract. 8. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act reads as follows: "28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed.- (1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease or immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require. (2) Where a contract is rescinded under sub-section (1), the court- (a) shall direct the purchaser or the lessee, if he has obtained possession of the property under the contract, to restore such possession to the vendor or lessor, and (b) may direct payment to the vendor or lessor of all the rents and profits which have accrued in respect of the property from the date on which possession was so obtained by the purchaser or lessee until restoration of possession to the vendor or lessor, and if the justice or the case so requires, the refund of any sum paid by the vendor or lessee as earnest money or deposit in connection with the contract. (3) If the purchaser or lessee pays the purchase money or other sum which he is ordered to pay under the decree within the period referred to in sub-section (1), the court may, on application made in the same suit, award the purchaser or lessee such further relief as he may be entitled to, including in appropriate cases all or any of the following reliefs, namely:- (a) the execution of a proper conveyance or lease by the vendor or lessor, (b) the delivery of possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property on the execution of such conveyance or lease. (4) No separate suit in respect of any relief which may be claimed under this section shall lie at the instance of a vendor, purchaser, lessor or lessee, as the case may be. (5) The costs of any proceedings under this section shall be in the discretion of the court." 9. It is seen from the section itself that a discretion has been vested in the court, even if time expired for payment of the amount as provided in the decree, the same can be extended by the court, permitting the plaintiff to pay the amount and get the document executed. It is seen from the allegations in the petition filed by the plaintiffs for getting the document executed as I.A. 835/2014, that after Ext.P2 award, twice amounts have been paid namely Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- during 2012 and 2013 and the time was extended between the parties for execution of the document at the request of the defendant and since he had not prepared to receive the balance amount and execute the document, the plaintiffs sent a notice for which he had sent reply with false allegations and that prompted the plaintiffs to file the petition. There is no dispute regarding the fact that along with the petition, the plaintiffs have deposited amount which according to them due, namely Rs. 7,15,000/-. There is no dispute regarding the fact that along with the petition, the plaintiffs have deposited amount which according to them due, namely Rs. 7,15,000/-. They have expressed their intention to deposit the amount and produce the amount required for purchasing stamp paper etc., It is also seen from the order of the court below and also admitted both the counsel that on 13.2.2015, the court below had passed that the Plaintiffs expressed their willingness to deposit the balance sale consideration and admitted by the defendant, permission is granted to get the deposit amount as well and the balance consideration was deposited by the plaintiff on getting permission. When the amount has been disputed between the parties and the court has permitted the balance amount to be deposited also for the purpose of granting permission to the plaintiff to get the document executed, then it can be presumed that the time has been extended by the court. 10. It is true that in the decision reported in D. Ramesh v. John Joseph [ 1995 (1) KLJ 682 ] it has been held that when the plaintiff wants extension of time under Section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure to deposit the amount under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, he must show sufficient cause. A reading of the averments in the petition filed by them and also partial admission made by the petitioners herein that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid after Ext.P2 award itself shows that parties have agreed between themselves to extend the time fixed in Ext.P2 award. It is also seen from Ext.P3 petition that even during August, 2013 another amount of Rs. 80,000/- was paid and since the defendant did not execute the document the plaintiff was compelled to send notice and the defendant sent reply to the same raising the contentions disowning his liability to execute the document as claimed in the notice, plaintiff was driven to file this petition before this Court. So under such circumstance, it cannot be said that no cause was given by the plaintiff for seeking the intervention of the court for permitting the plaintiff to deposit the amount and getting the document executed. So under such circumstance, it cannot be said that no cause was given by the plaintiff for seeking the intervention of the court for permitting the plaintiff to deposit the amount and getting the document executed. So it is clear from the allegations and from the conduct of the parties itself that after Ext.P2 award was passed, parties mutually agreed to extend the time more and since there was some dispute arose between the parties, the plaintiff was driven to court to seek permission of the court to deposit the amount and get the document executed. Further, when the court has after considering the submissions made by both parties regarding the amount payable permitted the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount also as the balance consideration payable and that amount was deposited by the plaintiff within the time extended by the court, then it can only be presumed that the court had after considering the contention of both parties extended the time for depositing the amount as provided under Section 28(1) read with Section 28(3) of Specific Relief Act. Further, even in an application filed by the petitioner seeking rescission of contract provided under Section 28(1) of Specific Relief Act, court instead of rescinding the contract even extend the time for depositing the amount. So under such circumstances, it can be safely concluded that court below had exercised the discretion permitted the plaintiff to deposit the amount by order dated 13.02.2015 which order has not been challenged by the petitioner at that time. So under such circumstances once the plaintiff had complied with the direction of the court to deposit the amount, then he is entitled to get the document executed invoking Section 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act. The court below had rightly exercised discretion and allowed the plaintiff to deposit the amount which was complied with the plaintiff and rightly ordered the execution of the document as provided under Section 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court invoking power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. So the petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned court below at the earliest.