Important Point – The discretion exercised by the executing Court in granting time to deposit the balance consideration has rightly not been interfered with at the instance of the applicant in its review jurisdiction.

1. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The order passed by the executing Court refusing to review its earlier order, by which the execution proceedings were disposed of by treating the decree for specific performance of an agreement to be duly satisfied is the subject matter of challenge in this Civil Revision Application.

3. For deciding the challenge as raised to the impugned order, it would be first necessary to refer to the facts on record, which are : Land bearing Khasra No. 146/3 admeasuring 69 Gunthas was owned by one Suresh Mankar. On 22nd March, 190, he entered into an agreement for selling said land to the non-applicant for a consideration of Rs.22,000/-. Earnest amount of Rs.18,000/- was immediately paid while the balance consideration of Rs.4,000/- was to be paid within a period of eleven months when the sale-deed was to be executed. The non-applicant – plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement on 12th December, 1991. During pendency of that suit, the defendant – Suresh Mankar sold the suit property to one Smt. Ratnamala Fopare. Thereafter, on 17th December, 1993, the defendant in the suit for specific performance was proceeded without his written statement. On 24th January, 1995, the trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance and directed execution of the sale-deed on payment of balance amount of Rs.4,000- 00. There was no time stipulated for paying the balance consideration. The plaintiff then put the decree for execution. On 13th January, 1997, he sought permission to deposit the balance consideration before the executing Court. This permission came to be granted on 24th June, 1999. The said amount, however, was not deposited and hence on 13th August, 1999, the plaintiff-decree holder moved another application seeking time to make the aforesaid deposit. This application was granted on the same day and on 20th August, 1999, the balance amount of Rs.4,000-00 came to be deposited.

4. On 3rd March, 2000, the applicant herein purchased the suit property from Smt. Ratnamala Fopare for Rs.2,80,000-00. In the execution proceedings, the executing Court on 18th November, 2008, directed the Nazar to execute sale-deed in favour of the decree holder. Accordingly, on 19th January, 2009, a sale-deed came to be executed in favour of the plaintiff. On 10th February, 2009, the executing Court issued a warrant of possession and this warrant was claimed to have been executed on 13th November, 2009 by putting the plaintiff in possession. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the decree for specific performance by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”). He also filed a review application before the executing Court seeking review of the order dated 10th February, 2009, by which the warrant of possession had been issued and prayed for restoration of his possession. The appellate Court on 14th December, 2011 allowed the appeal filed by the applicant and after setting aside decree passed by the trial Court, remanded the suit for fresh adjudication. This order passed by the appellate Court was challenged by the plaintiff by filing Appeal from Order No. 11 of 2012 in this Court. This appeal, however, came to be dismissed on 17th July, 2012. The plaintiff being aggrieved by this order challenged the same before the Honourable Supreme Court. On 4th August, 2014, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and after setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the Appeal from Order as well as the order of remand passed by the first appellate Court, the decree passed by the trial Court was restored. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application below Exh.6 seeking to amend the review application. The plea that the agreement dated 22nd March, 1990 stood rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, “the said Act”) was sought to be raised. This application was