JUDGMENT - 1. In this second appeal by the original decree-holder from the judgment of the Assistant Judge, Satara, dated. July 12,1966, the contention of the decree-holder is that the Assistant Judge was wrong in setting aside the order of the executing Court condoning delay on the part of the decree-holder in depositing the purchase price by 9 days and that the Darkhast No. 124 of 1965 (which was for carrying out the sale of the property in suit by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder) should proceed.

2. The facts leading to the above Darkhast No. 123 of 1965 are that in Suit No. 70 of 1960 decree for specific performance of agreement for sale of the suit property was passed in favour of the decree-holder on August 27, 1964. The trial Court had directed the decree-holder to deposit in Court Rs. 700/- within 3 months of the decree and that thereafter the defendant should execute the sale deed of the two properties in suit in favour of the decree-holder. The trial Court had given directions regarding inquiry into mesne profits. In Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1964, by judgment and order dated August 13, 1965, the decree of the trial Court was modified and it was provided that the de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document