1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of CPC by the petitioner-decree holder, challenging the order dated 07.08.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Civil Misc. Application No. 18 of 2002, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with Section 148 of CPC.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had filed the suit being No. 187 of 1993 seeking specific performance of the agreement allegedly executed by the respondents-defendants in favour of the petitioner. The said suit was decreed ex-parte against the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 vide the judgment & decree dated 07.10.1993. The said decree was sought to be set-aside by the respondents by moving an application before the trial court, however the said application was dismissed vide the order dated 04.12.1996. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents had also filed the misc. appeal in the court of Additional District Judge, Dholpur, however the said appeal was also dismissed vide the order dated 18.08.2001. The petitioner-decree holder thereafter submitted an application under Section 28 of the said Act read with Section 148 of CPC on 04.02.2002 seeking extension of time for depositing the amount as directed in the decree. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order, against which the present revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel Mr. Deepak Sharma for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not pay the amount to the respondents within 6 months of the decree as the respondents had filed the application seeking setting-aside of the said decree, and the said application having been dismissed by the trial court, he had preferred the appeal, and that after the dismissal of the said appeal, the application for extension of time was made by the petitioner. According to him, no time limit was fixed in the decree for depositing of the amount in the court, if the respondent No.1 refused to accept the amount, and therefore the court should have extended the time limit, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel Mr. Sharma has relied upon the decision of Patna High Court in Case of Tribeni Tewary and other vs. Ramratan Nonia and other, AIR 1959, 460, and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Sajja Chimpiraiah vs. Gaddam Venkata Subbaiah and other, AIR 2004 AP 528, to submit that it is the discretion of the court to extend the time limit under Section 28 of the said Act. He has submitted that the trial court having not exercised the discretion judiciously, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

4. However, the learned counsel Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, for the respondents submitted that there was no stay against the execution of the decree, pending the application for setting aside of the decree, and pending the appeal before the appellate court, and therefore the petitioner was required to deposit the amount either with the respondent No.1 or in the court within 6 months of the decree, and that having not been done for about 8 years, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Mr. Garg has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Chanda (dead) Through LR’s vs. Rattni Devi and another, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1514, to submit that the impugned order passed by the trial court being discretionary in nature, this Court should not interfere with the same.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be necessary to reproduce the operative part of the decree passed in the suit, which reads as under:-

^^nkok oknh o gd oknh ,oa f[kykQ izfroknhx.k uEcj ,d cPpw bl izdkj ls fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS fd izfroknh uEcj ,d cPpw vkjkth [kljk