IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition should not be allowed to be an appeal in disguise and should be exercised sparingly, with the court emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The appellants vide the instant review petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ("CPC" hereinafter) seeks the following reliefs:

"A. Review the order dated 24.1.2024 to the extent it denies interim relief of stay of impugned judgment; (B). Pass an such order(s)/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case."

2. The relevant facts that have led to the filing of the accompanying Regular First Appeal ("RFA" hereinafter) are reproduced herein below:

a) The appellants approached the respondent in the year 2010 as owners of shop bearing no. X/212, Mohalla Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi- 31 (hereinafter "suit property") for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.40,50,000/-.

b) Thereafter, the parties executed an Agreement to Sell dated 20th July, 2010, whereby the part payment of Rs.20,50,000/- was made by the respondent to the appellants and the remaining payment was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of the sale deed on or before 30th August, 2010.

c) Since, the appellants failed to execute the sale deed, as agreed upon by the parties, hence in light of the same the respondent lodged an F.I.R bearing No. 289/10 under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the appellants at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.

d) Pursuant to which the appellants were convicted in the trial by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate respondent and were subsequently, acquitted by learned Additional Session Judge in appeal.

e) During the course of investigation of the criminal case, it came to the light that the brother of the appellants had filed a partition suit titled "Anil Jain Vs. Prabhash Jain & Ors." before learned ADJ, Tis Hazari, Delhi and the same was pending at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 20th July, 2010.

f) Thereafter, vide order dated 5th August, 2010, the learned Trial Court granted an order for injunction with respect to the suit property due to which the said agreement to sell could not be specifically performed.

g) Aggrieved by the actions of the appellants the respondent herein filed a suit seeking a money decree for a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18%.

h) In view of the same, the learned Trial Court passed a money decree in favour of the respondent herein, for a recovery of sum of Rs.20,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% from 6th September, 2011, till the date of its realization observing that the Agreement to Sell dated 20th July, 2010, executed between the parties was proven and the said amount was paid as a part of advance money for purchasing a shop.

i) The appellants preferred the accompanying Regular First Appeal No.64 of 2024 under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 17th October, 2023, ("impugned judgment/decree" hereinafter) in C.S. No. 124/2016 passed by the Learned ADJ-03, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ("ADJ" hereinafter).

j) An application for stay bearing no. CM APPL. No.4651/2024 was preferred before this Court by the appellants seeking stay on the execution of the judgment/decree passed by the learned Trial Court, against which the appellants has preferred the instant appeal.

k) This Court passed an order dated 24th January, 2024, ("impugned Order" hereinafter) observing that since the appellant submit that they are financially incapable to deposit the decretal amount with this Court, therefore no interim stay can be granted in favour of the appellants.

l) Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24th January 2024, the appellants have preferred the instant review petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that they are not in a position to deposit the decretal amount since the appellant no. 1 is currently employed as a peon in a private medical clinic and the