( 1 ) THE original decree holder being aggrieved by the order of the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) Botad dated 29/09/1979 dismissing his execution application seeking to execute the consent decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 169 of 1974 on the file of the said Court has come by way of this revision application to this Court. The decree-holder who is the applicant herein and respondent No. 1 are brothers and each one of them was in cultivation and possession of the respective portion of the land of S. No. 106 situated within the revenue limits of village Kariyani admeasuring acres 6-0 gunthas and acres 4-19 gunthas respectively. Since the said land was not divided by metes and bounds they were cultivating their respective portions of land according to their convenience. Since the judgment-debtor-respondent No. 1 herein was trying to dispose of the portion of the land in his possession to respondent No. 2 the applicant filed a suit for possession being Regular Civil Suit No. 169 of 1974 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Botad on the ground that he has a right to pre-emption on the said portion of the land. In that suit a compromise was arrived at and a consent decree was passed in terms thereof. According to the decree it was agreed by and between the parties that respondent No. 1 shall sell the portion of land in his possession admeasuring acres 4-19 gunthas to the applicant for a sum of Rs. 1500. 00 and he will execute necessary deed of conveyance within 15 days of the date of the decree. The consent decree was granted by the Court on 6/10/1976 It appears that respondent No. 1 executed a deed of conveyance in favour of Vashram Govind-respondent No. 2 herein on 10/10/1976 and thus tied to foresstall the execution of the decree. The applicants therefore applied for the execution of the decree on 24/12/1976 by joining original judgment-debtor and the purchaser as party-respondents. One of the contentions urged on behalf of the judgment-debtor was that the decree was not capable of being executed. On behalf of the purchaser it was contended in the memo of objections to the execution application that the possession of the land was handed over to the purchaser-respondent No. 2 herein in terms of the agreement to sell executed by the judgment-debtor in his favour on 29/05/1974 and the purchaser was not aware that any suit was filed nor was a party to the consent decree which is in the nature of a contract and therefore not executable. The learned Judge dismissed the execution application on the ground that the decree-holder has not acted according to the decree inasmuch as he has failed to tender the amount of consideration viz. Rs. 1500. 00 within 15 days of the date of the decree and that it was not within his jurisdiction or power or authority to extend the time of tender in view of the provision contained in Order to Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is this order which has been challenged in this revision application.

( 2 ) I am of the opinion that this revision application must be allowed obviously for the following reasons. The learned Judge with respect to him must construe the consent decree. There is no prior obligation on the part of the decree-holder to tender the amount of consideration. On the contrary the judgment-debtor-respondent No. 1 herein agreed and undertook to execute a sale deed in respect of the portion of the land in his possession and cultivation in favour of the decree-holder within 15 days of the date of the decree. It is only when the judgment-debtor expresses his readiness and willingness to execute the deed of conveyance that the decree-holder was under obligation to pay the consideration. As a matter of fact in the present case the judgment-debtor has hardly within five days of the passing of the consent decree executed the conveyance deed in favour of Vashram Govind-respondent No. 2 herein that is on 12/10/1976 In that state of affairs the decree-holder could not have tende