Sandeep Kumar, J. – The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, IV, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Execution Case No.02 of 2014, by which he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extending the date to deposit the rest decreetal amount.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed Title Suit No.22 of 2000 for a decree for specific performance of contract for sale against the petitioner-defendant. In the said suit, it has been contended that on 08.09.1997 a registered agreement was executed by the original defendant-petitioner in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for sale of the suit property for total consideration money of Rs.40,000/-, out of which Rs.25,000/- was paid by the respondent-plaintiff to the petitioner-defendant. On refusal of the original defendant-petitioner to execute the sale deed in accordance with the agreement for sale, the respondent filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 22 of 2000. The petitioner-defendant contested the assertion of the respondent-plaintiff and also denied the legality, validity and genuineness of the agreement for sale. He also filed Title Suit No.166 of 1998 for declaration that the agreement for sale was fraudulent, illegal and inoperative and not a genuine document. Both the suits have been heard together and by a common judgment dated 25.02.2010, the suit filed by the respondent was decreed by directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration money. However, the case of the respondent of payment of Rs.25,000/- by way of advance towards the consideration money was disbelieved by the trial court by holding that only an amount of Rs.6000/- had been paid by the respondent-plaintiff to the petitioner-original defendant out of consideration money. The suit filed by the original defendant, however, was dismissed.

3. The plaintiff of Title Suit No.22 of 2000 preferred an appeal against the part decree questioning the finding of payment of Rs.6000/- only by way of advance and asserting that the trial court ought to have held that altogether Rs.25,000/- was paid by way of advance out of the total consideration money. The plaintiff of Title Suit No.166 of 1998 preferred an appeal against the judgment by which his appeal was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 22 of 2000 has been allowed by judgment and decree dated 07.07.2014 wherein the appellate court has reversed the finding of the trial court regarding payment of Rs.6000/- only by the respondent to the petitioner by way of advance and has held that the respondent had paid altogether Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner by way of advance toward the total consideration money. On 17.09.2014, the respondent filed Execution Case No.02 of 2014 for executing the decree passed in Title Suit No.22 of 2000. On the same day, he filed an application before the Executing Court to permit him to pay Rs.15,000/- through challan. However, the aforesaid application was never pressed.

4. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner filed Second Appeal No.253 of 2014 against the order passed in Title Appeal No.16 of 2010. He also filed Second Appeal No.116 of 2015 against the judgment passed in Title Appeal No.15 of 2010. This Court vide order dated 28.10.2016 dismissed both the appeals.

5. On 10.02.2018, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act with a prayer to rescind the contract not having followed the direction of the trial court and not having deposited the rest amount of Rs.15,000/- with compound interest. The respondent filed rejoinder to the said application. On 13.03.2018, the respondent filed an application under Section 148 of the C.P.C. for extension of time for payment of required consideration money, as af