M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

The revision petitioner, who is the judgment-debtor in O.S.No. 37 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Alappuzha, has raised two questions in this revision.

They are: (1) whether in a decree far specific performance the Court can extend the time for deposit of the purchase price subsequent to the decree; and (2) whether an application for extension of time is required as a condition precedent for the Court to grant extension of time.

2. A decree for specific performance was passed in the case in favour of the present respondent, who was the plaintiff in the suit on 27.2.1986. One of the conditions in the decree was that the balance of the sale consideration, due to the present revision petitioner should be deposited within one month, from the said date. There was no such deposit, made till 20.3.1997. When the question of executing the decree arose, the revision-petitioner took the stand mat the decree has become unenforceable in consequence of the failure on the part of the plaintiff in depositing the balance of the purchase money within the time granted by the Court and in that respect there was failure on the part of the plaintiff hims