RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is preferred against the order passed by thelearned Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah dismissing I. A. 493/87 preferred by the petitioner seeking extension of time for depositing the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 3,91,210/- until 25-7-1987. The material facts giving rise to the above revision petition may be briefly stated.

( 2 ) THE petitioner instituted O. S. No. 62/84 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddapah for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 6-4-1981 executed in his favour by the respondent. The suit was decreed on 25-6-1987 on condition that the petitioner should deposit into the court the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 3,91,210/- within one month from the date of the decree. In default of deposit of the amount the court directed that the suit would stand dismissed. The petitioner applied for a challan for remittance of the amount into the court on the 20th July, 1987 and was supplied with the same. The petitioner would have it that while he was making arrangements to deposit the amount into the court his brother seriously fell ill, that he was admitted into the Ruia Hospital, Tirupathi for treatment, that later his brother had to undergo a surgical operation at madras and that he could not therefore return to Cuddapah in time to deposit the amount. He therefore filed I. A. 493/87 on 25-7-87 seeking extension of time by one month for depositing the amount.

( 3 ) THE application was resisted by the respondent contending interalia that the plea put forward by the petitioner was any thing but true, that the petitioner having obtained a challan his presence was not at all necessary at Cuddapah for depositing the balance amount into the court and that in any event the court has no jurisdiction to extend time for depositing the balance amount.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that the amount not havingbeen deposited by the petitioner in time the court had no power to extend time for depositing the balance of the amount, the court having become functus officio.

( 5 ) SRI Jwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contendsthat under Secs. 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court has ample power to extend time to deposit the balance amount into the court and that the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong in holding otherwise.

( 6 ) IN G. Bhujangrao Ganpati vs. Sheshrao Rajaram a conditionaldecree for specific performance was passed in favour of the respondent- plaintiff therein the condition being that he should deposit into the court the amount of costs covering execution and registration of the intended sale deed, within one month from the date of the decree. In default, it was stipulated that the suit would stand dismissed. The respondent failed to make the deposit within the time stipulated under the decree. Later be filed an application seeking condonation of delay in depositing the amount of costs on the ground of illness. On the same day, he also filed and execution application requesting the court to direct the defendant to execute the necessary sale deed in terms of the decree. Both the applications were opposed by the defendant contending inter alia that in view of non-compliance with the terms of the decree the suit automatically stood dismissed at the end of one month from the date of the decree and that the court bad no jurisdiction to condone the delay or extend time as applied for. The plea of the defendant was upheld by the trial court. In the result both the applications filed by the plaintiff were dismissed. On appeal to the District court the learned Judge set aside the orders passed by the trial court and remitted the applications to the trial court for disposal of the application for extension of time on merits in view of the provisions of Sec. 28 (1) of specific Relief Act. 1963. Against the said order the defendant filed a revision petition in the High Court of Bombay. Adverting to the plea founded on Sec.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document