( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the respondent seeking time for deposit of the balance of the sale consideration pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 8-4-1994 in S. A. No. 507/90.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are: A suit was filed for the specific performance of an agreement which was decreed. The defendant went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge in A. S. No. 25/87. He filed a further appeal i. e. Second Appeal No. 507/90. The second appeal was also dismissed.

( 3 ) THE trial Court while decreeing the suit for special performance granted 3 months time form the date of judgment for depositing the balance of sale consideration. The second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 8-4-1994. The original suit was decreed on 6-7-1987. However, while dismissing the second appeal, no time limit was fixed for depositing the balance of sale consideration. The present application is filed stating tha t by oversight, no request was made for granting time to deposit the balance of sale consideration and therefore, he should be permitted to deposit this balance of sale consideration within four weeks from the date of filing of the said application. The said application was filed on 14-9-1995.

( 4 ) THE Counsel appearing for the appellant opposed the application on the ground that it is a case where the decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed both by the Appellate Court as well as the High Court and therefore the time runs from the date of the original decree and since it has already expired, this court cannot grant extension of time. In support of his contention, he relied on nagura Appa vs. Namdev wherein the Supreme Court considered the effect of appeal on time fixed for payment and effect of failure to deposit within the time allowed. The learned Counsel submitted that in view of the above, this Court has no power to extend the time granted by the trial Court while decreeing the suit for specific performance. The Counsel also submitted that he has already filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking rescission of the contract. Therefore, no extension can be granted.

( 5 ) IT is true in Nagura Appa s case, it was observed that the argument that the appellant was justified in not depositing the amount within the time fixed by the decree as he has filed an appeal cannot be sustained as mere filing of an appeal does not suspend the decree for pre-emption and unless that decree is altered in any manner by the Court of appeal the pre-emptor is bound to comply with its directions with regard to the deposit of amount within the fixed time. It was also held that the dismissal of the suit for not depositing the sale price within 2 months from the date of the decree for pre-emption is not by reason of any decision of the Court, but the dismissal of the suit is as a result of the mandatory provision of Order 20 Rule 14. In other words, according to the learned Judges in any suit for pre-emption, if time is granted by the trial Court for deposit of the sale price and if the amount was not deposited within the time fixed by the trial Court on the ground that the appeal has been filed, the dismissal of the suit is on account of the mandatory provision under Order 20 Rule 14 of C. P. C. and not by the decision of the Court. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it was dealing with a case of suit for pre-emption, which is governed by a specific provision under Order 20 Rule 14 C. P. C. The present case is a suit for specific performance of the contract. Under Section 28 of the Specific relief Act, power is conferred on the Court to extend the time for the payment of purchase money or other sum. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act reads as follows:"where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the