1. Both these Civil Revision Applications are filed challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur in Misc. Civil Application Nos. 171 and 172 of 1995 on 21.8.2003 thereby allowing the said applications and restoring the execution proceeding Nos. 79 of 1983 and 80 of 1983 respectively.

2. The petitioners herein are the original judgment debtors III and III/2 in said Misc. Civil Applications, filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein for restoration for execution proceeding No. 79 of 1983 and 80 of 1983, as the said proceedings were dismissed in default for non prosecution by the learned C.J.S.D. Latur on 21.8.1991.

3. In the said Misc. applications, it was stated by the respondents herein that they have filed Special Civil Suit No. 58 of 1966 for specific performance of agreement of sale against the deceased Sangramappa and the said suit was decreed. They have filed execution proceedings to obtain the sale deed to be executed by the defendants at their costs on payment of balance consideration of Rs.14,850/- as per the decree. The amount is duly deposited in the Court. On death of Sangramappa, his heirs and L.Rs. Shankarappa Sidramappa, widow of deceased and son Prabhu appeared in execution proceedings. While the execution proceeding were pending, Shankarappa died and his L.Rs. were brought on record. The decree holders i.e. petitioners had filed the duly stamped sale deed in Court to be executed by heirs of judgment debtors. From the record of Darkhast proceeding it is apparent that judgment debtors Sidaramappa and heirs of Prabhu and Suglabai have also withdrawn their share out of consideration amount deposited in Court and in token of their acceptance of sale deed they have put their signatures, thumb marks on the sale deed. The sale deed was to be duly registered at the costs of defendants. Judgments debtors after all have executed the sale deed as per law and decree.

4. One of the L.Rs. Shankarapa and his heirs did not co-operate in the matter and they delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The court below had also passed order for execution of the sale deed by Superintendent of the court. Indeed, there was no liability caste upon decree holders except depositing the balance consideration within specified date, which the decree holders/plaintiff has duly fulfilled. The decree holder insisted for balance consideration and for after execution of sale deed by judgment debtors. The sale deed duly stamped was on record. It seems that no further action was taken by Superintendent to complete the formalities for registration of sale deed. The judgment debtors were to pay the costs of registration stamp etc. as per decree and it seems that execution proceeding was disposed of for non prosecution on 21.8.1991 by the lower court without the knowledge of the decree holder. The disposal of the execution proceeding came to the knowledge of the decree holder on 15.11.1995 when they wanted to obtain copy of sale deed.

5. It was the case of the respondents herein who are original decree holders that all necessary steps have been taken by them to complete the sale deed but due to death of judgment debtors, one after another, during pendency of the case, execution proceeding were prolonged. The decree holders were ready to deposit the charges of registration. But no notice or estimated costs was issued or served on decree holder. Majority of the judgment debtors have taken their share out of consideration deposited in the court without completing the execution and registration of the sale deed. Disposal of the case is unjust and not warranted by law and facts of the case. No final order on merits is passed in the case. Disposal of case in default needs to be set aside under section 151 of C.P.C., in the interest of justice.

6. The Misc applications filed by the respondents herein came to be allowed on 21.8.2003. The Joint C.J.S.D. Latur allowed the applications and Special Darkhast Nos. 79