JUDGMENT : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order passed below Exh.5 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhandara, in Regular Darkhast No. 43 of 2015, rejecting the application for extension of time to deposit the amount of Rs. 20,000/- required to be paid by the plaintiff within a period of one month from 16.09.2015 i.e. the date of passing of a decree so as to get the decree of specific performance of contract executed in his favour. 3. The Court has held that the decree was conditional and non-fulfillment of it within the stipulated period results in dismissal of the suit and there cannot be any extension of time to deposit such amount. The Court has also held on merit that no case is made out for extension of time to deposit such amount. 4. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for respondent urged in support of the order that an application should have been made in Regular Civil Suit No. 187 of 2012 in which a decree was passed for specific performance of contract and the executing Court had no jurisdiction to deal with such application. 5. The undisputed factual position is that the decree was passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 187 of 2012 for specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff and clauses (iii) and (v) of the operative portion of the judgment being relevant are reproduced below. "(iii) The plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance consideration amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) on or before 15.10.2015 in the Court. (v) If the plaintiff failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- as directed above in the Court, then suit of plaintiff will stand dismissed." 6. The amount was undisputedly not deposited within the stipulated period which expired on 15.10.2015. On 30.10.2015, an application was filed for execution of decree along with an application for extension of time to deposit the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 20,000/- so as to get the decree executed. The amount was undisputedly not deposited within the stipulated period which expired on 15.10.2015. On 30.10.2015, an application was filed for execution of decree along with an application for extension of time to deposit the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 20,000/- so as to get the decree executed. There was delay of 15 days in depositing the amount and in para (3) of the application for that purpose, reason was stated that the decree holder was bed ridden because of undergoing operation and therefore, he was unable to move, as a result of which the deposit of amount is not being made within the stipulated period. 7. The contentions raised by Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent are concluded by the decision of this Court in case of Gopal Sambhaji Samarth through LRs. and Others v. Mukundrao Mahadeo Gedam, (2012) 2 Mh LJ 602. It was a specific contention raised that the decree passed for specific performance of contract was conditional and upon non-deposit of the amount within the stipulated period, the consequences of dismissal of the suit automatically follow. Reliance was placed upon several decisions of the Apex Court. While dealing with the said judgments, this Court has held as under; "10..........The principles laid down in those judgments would not be applicable to a decree for specific performance of contract, which is governed by Order 20, Rule 12-A of the Civil Procedure Code. Rule 12-A of Order XX empowers the Court to direct purchase- money or other sum to be paid by the purchaser within the stipulated period in a decree for specific performance of contract for sale. However, the said provision does not provide the consequences for failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, as has been provided under Rule 14, Order XX of the Civil Procedure Code. By necessary implication, the question of extension of time is left open to the discretion of the Court. Hence, the judgments relied upon by Shri Sourabh Chaudhari for the applicants/defendants are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 8. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara, 1994 AIR (SC) 1699, it was held in paragraph 11 that fixation of time is an incidental direction and granting extension of time does not result in the amendment of the decree. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara, 1994 AIR (SC) 1699, it was held in paragraph 11 that fixation of time is an incidental direction and granting extension of time does not result in the amendment of the decree. It is further held that the Court has power to grant extension of time upon sufficient reasons being shown. 9. In paragraph 12 of the said decision in Gopal's case, this Court has also deal with the question of power of the executing Court to grant extension of time as under; "12. In view of the aforesaid view taken by this Court, the argument that the application ought to have been made to the trial Court and the Executing Court was not competent to grant extension of time, is rejected. The contention of Shri Sourabh Chaudhaqri for the applicants/defendants that the application ought to have been moved in the suit decided, does not survive, as in the present case also the decree was passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara and the execution proceedings were also filed before the same Court, which has passed an order granting extension of time and rejecting the objection to the executability of the decree. The contention that granting of extension amounts to amendment of decree, is also rejected. The extension of time is for sufficient reasons. The direction fixing time to deposit amount being incidental in nature, the Executing Court was also competent to extend the time." 10. Here in the present case, the decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhandara and the execution was also before him. The points urged are, therefore, no longer res integra. 11. On the factual aspect of the matter, the executing Court has held that the plaintiff could have get the balance amount of consideration deposited through his relatives or the counsel and he should have arranged for such deposit of the amount, his presence was not required for deposit of the amount. It is further held that no medical certificate is placed on record showing that he was bed ridden. This finding also cannot be accepted that a person who obtains a decree for specific performance of contract in his favour would be unwilling to deposit the amount within the stipulated period so as to deprive himself of the fruits of the decree. This finding also cannot be accepted that a person who obtains a decree for specific performance of contract in his favour would be unwilling to deposit the amount within the stipulated period so as to deprive himself of the fruits of the decree. There was no challenge to such plea raised in the application and at any rate, there was hardly 15 days delay in making an offer to deposit the amount. 12. In view of above, the order impugned cannot be sustained. The same will have to be quashed and set aside and the application Exh.5 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is required to be allowed. 13. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31.10.2015 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhandara, below Exh.5 in Regular Darkhast No. 43 of 2015 rejecting the application for extension of time to deposit the amount is hereby quashed and set aside. The application at Exh.5 is allowed. The petitioner to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date of first appearance of the parties before the executing Court. The consequential order of dismissal of executing proceedings passed on 31.10.2015 below Exh.1 is also quashed and set aside. The parties to appear before the executing Court on 26.03.2018. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, this writ petition shall be treated to have been dismissed by the Court. 14. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No orders as to costs.