Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 842 (ALL)

Ali Hasan v. Zakir Ali

2020-05-05

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2020
ORDER : Siddhartha Varma, J. 1. Written arguments have been submitted by both the parties which have been taken on record. 2. A suit being Original Suit No. 633 of 1992 was filed by the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents against the predecessors-in-interest of petitioners for specific performance. The relief claimed in the suit was that in view of the agreement to sell, the sale-deed be executed. The Suit was filed on 3.7.1992 and the same was decreed on 15.7.1996. On 9.8.1996 when the First Appeal being First Appeal No. 179 of 1996 was filed the effect and operation of the decree dated 15.7.1996 was stayed. The First Appeal which was filed by the defendants was ultimately dismissed on 10.12.2002. A second Appeal being Second Appeal No. 258 of 2003 was filed before the High Court and was dismissed on 5.3.2003. 3. In the mean time, on 7.1.2003, the plaintiff decree holders (the respondent here) filed an Execution Case No. 1 of 2003. This Execution Case was also filed with an application praying that the plaintiffs be allowed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/-. Of course, in the Execution Application prayer was made that the sale deed in pursuance of the decree dated 15.7.1996 to be executed in favour of the plaintiff decree holders. The petitioners moved an objection on 11.9.2015 in the pending Execution Case saying that since Rs. 15,000/- had not been deposited till the date of the filing of the objection dated 11.9.2015 the decree dated 15.7.1996 had become ineffective and infructuous and, therefore, the Execution Case be dismissed. The decree holders objected to the objection which was ultimately dismissed on 31.8.2017, forcing the petitioners to file a Revision. When the Revision was dismissed on 7.5.2018, the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the time provided in the decree for depositing of the remaining amount as per the agreement to sell had not been deposited by the plaintiff within the time permitted by the decree dated 15.7.1996 and, therefore, the decree could not be executed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, a prayer for the extension of time should have been made at the relevant point of time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, a prayer for the extension of time should have been made at the relevant point of time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following citations:- M. Parimanam @ Parimana Konar vs. T. Egammai, Radhey Shyam and others vs. Harendra Pal Rathi reported in 2015 (6) ALJ 27, Prem Jeevan vs. K.S. Venkata Raman and Another reported in 2017 AIR (SCW) 623, Chanda (dead) through Lrs vs. Rattni and Anr. reported in 2007 AIR (SC) 1514 and P.R. Yelumalai vs. N.M. Ravi reported in 2015 AIR (SCW) 2405. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, in reply, however, submitted that there was no time provided by the agreement to the plaintiffs to deposit the remaining amount. In this regard, the respondents relied upon following citations:- 2009 (3) AWC 2508 : (Savitri Devi v. Ashok Kumar), AIR 1999 SC 918 : (V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. Alagappan and another) and AIR 1994 SC 1699 : (Ramankutty v. Avara). 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the written submissions, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of law. The Executing Court was justified in granting time to decree holder to deposit the balance amount as per the decree of the Trial Court. A perusal of the order of the Trial Court indicates that a specific direction was issued to the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed within a specified period of time, failing which the decree holder had been given the right to get the sale deed executed through the process of Court. The Executing Court was, therefore, justified in the granting time to the decree holder to deposit the remaining amount. As per the judgment reported in 1999 SC 918 (V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm vs. C. Alagappan & Another) when the Executing Court was also the Court where application for extension of time had to be filed then there was no error if the executing Court extended the time. The judgments as have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no relevance in the present case. 8. The judgments as have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no relevance in the present case. 8. Since the decree is of the year 1996 and much time has elapsed, this Court directs under its powers conferred by the Constitution of India under Articles 227 and 226 that the Decree Holder at the time of execution of the decree shall be paid a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- over and above the amount which was payable under the decree. 9. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.