JUDGMENT

PATHAK, CJI. :— The appellant herein filed Civil Suit No. 18 of 1968 in the High Court for specific performance of a contract to sell the suit property by the respondent herein to her. A question which arose for decision was whether the appellant should discharge the mortgage of the suit property created by the respondent in favour of the South Indian Bank. The High Court held that the appellant was liable to discharge the mortgage and directed her to deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest for the purpose. The appellant paid the amount direct to the mortgagee. The High Court refused to accept the payment made directly to the mortgagee as due compliance with its decree and against that order of the High Court the appellant preferred Civil Appeals Nos. 1993-1994 of 1977. This Court disposed of the said appeals by the following order dated 29 November, 1979.

"We direct that a decree be passed that the Plaintiff- Appellant do deposit within six months from today the entire sum of Rs. 3,45,000/- together with interest due up to date at the rate of 11 per cent, together with an undertaking that she would give up all her rights under the mortgage decree passed in her favour in C. S. No. 154 of 1968 except to the extent of the amount actually paid to the South Indian Bank for taking the assignment. If these two conditions are fulfilled, the appeals will stand allowed and a final decree for specific performance passed. In the event of non-compliance with either of these conditions the appeals will stand dismissed with costs."

2. Purporting to comply with the above order of this Court, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,42,822.19 on 11 April, 1980 in the High Court with the undertaking to give up all her rights decreed in C.S. No. 154 of 1968 and filed C.M.P. Nos. 2424 and 2425 of 1980 in the High Court for a declaration that the payment as mentioned above was in compliance with the order of this Court and she claimed a set off of the amount of Rs. 5,96,687.19 paid by her earlier to the South Indian Bank which she was entitled to recover from the respondent in accordance with the second condition of the order of this Court dated 29 November, 1979. The time limit fixed for fulfilling the two conditions set out in this Courts order dated 29 November, 1979 having fallen on 29 May, 1980 and the High Court not having passed orders on her C. M. Ps. Nos. 2424-2425 of 1980 till then, she paid into the High Court a sum of Rs. 6,02,000/- or 29 May, 1980 by cheque purporting to comply with the first condition set out in this Courts order aforesaid.

3. C. M. Ps. Nos. 2424 and 2425 of 1980 filed by the appellant in the High Court were dismissed by a single Judge by an order dated 6 June, 1980 against which the appellant preferred Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 947-48 of 1981. The appellant also filed another C. M.P. No. 2875 of 1980 in the High Court for a declaration that she had complied with the aforesaid order of this Court dated 29 November, 1979 which was dismissed by the High Court. Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1981 has been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court in C.M.P. No. 2875 of 1980.

4. The only question decided against the appellant by the High Court in C.M.P. No. 2875 of 1980 was with regard to the deposit of the amount stipulated in the first condition of the order of this Court dated 29 November, 1979. The crucial issue was whether the payment made by the appellant on 29 May, 1980 by cheque of the amount of Rs. 6,02,000/- together with the amount deposited earlier on 11 April, 1980 was in due compliance of the first condition of this Courts Order dated 29 November, 1979. The High Court found that the simple delivery of the cheque on 29 May, 1980 could not be deemed to be deposit of the specified sum on 29 May, 1980 in satisfaction of the order of this Court when the amount of the cheque had been realised only on 16 June, 1980. The High Court held that the appellant was bound to c