The essence of time in a contract and the impact of failure to perform within stipulated time were central to the court's decision.

This revision petition has been filed challenging the propriety and legality of the order dated 20-08-2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in Misc. (J) Case No. 85/2018 arising out of Title Ex. Case No. 6/2018.

2. The factual background leading to the present revision petition is thus : The present opposite party, as plaintiff, filed T.S. No 16/2012 for specific performance of contract in respect of a plot of land measuring 12.24 lechas, covered by dag no. 480 and 483 and P.P. No. 79 situated at Tinsukia town. During the pendency of the suit, both the parties entered into an amicable settlement and filed a joint compromise petition before the court on 02-09- 2015, urging the court to pass a compromise decree in terms of the compromise agreement entered into between the parties. Learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in terms of the amicable settlement and a compromise decree was accordingly drawn up. As the judgment debtor failed to execute the sale deed as per the decree, the respondent/decree holder filed an execution proceeding, which was registered as T. Ext. Case No. 6/2018. The petitioner/judgment debtor filed an application u/s 47 of the CPC resisting the execution proceeding, alleging inter alia, that the opposite party/decree holder failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise decree and had shown unwillingness to purchase the land and therefore, the petitioner/judgement debtor refunded the advance amount of Rs. 1 lakh by depositing the same in the bank account of the respondent/decree holder and thereby cancelled the decree. It was the contention of the petitioner/judgment debtor, that as the opposite party/decree holder failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the decree within the stipulated time and also demonstrated his unwillingness to purchase the land by paying the balance consideration money, and the petitioner/judgment debtor also refunded the advance money, the decree was non est and could not be executed.

3. Upon hearing both the parties, learned Civil Judge by the impugned order rejected the plea of the petitioner/judgment debtor. Aggrieved, the petitioner/judgment debtor filed the present revision petition.

4. I have heard learned senior counsel, Mr. G. N Sahewalla for the petitioner/judgment debtor and learned counsel, Mr. S. Dutt for the respondent/decree holder.

5. Mr. Sahewalla referring to clause x of the compromise agreement being part of the decree, contended, that time was the essence of the contract between the parties and the respondent-decree holder having failed to perform his part of the contract by not paying the balance amount of Rs. 1, 85,000/- within the stipulated time of 3 (three) months, the contract lapsed and the petitioner/judgment debtor also refunded the advance amount of Rs. 1 lakh in the meantime and therefore, the decree was non est and could not be executed. It was also contended by Mr. Sahewalla, that several years have elapsed in the meantime and the value of the property also escalated, and as such, the decree could not be executed. In order to buttress, his submission, Mr. Sahewalla placed reliance on the following decisions :

1. (1998) 2 SCC 226, Bismillah Begum (SMT) Dead by LRs.-VSRahmatullah Khan (Dead) by LRs.

2. (2002) 1 SCC 134, Veerayee Ammal –VS- Seeni Ammal

3. (2011) 9 SCC 147, Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals _VSRamaniyam Real Estates Private Ltd. and Anr.

6. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. S. Dutta submitted, that the alleged refund of advance money by the petitioner/judgment debtor could not affect the decree, inasmuch as, such payment was not brought to the notice of the court, nor the same was certified by the court as per Rule 2 of Order XXI CPC. Therefore, the unilateral deposition of the money in the account of the decree holder without his consent was of no consequence and could not have any impact on the decree, which was passed on the basis