The appellate court has the jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit of the sale consideration under Sec.148 CPC. The dismissal of the appeal impliedly extends the time for deposit of the sale consideration.

, J.

1. This revision is directed against order August 12, 1988, passed by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Fazilka. in execution of decree dismissing objections filed by the judgment debtors.

2. Puran Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale dated December 7, 1981, executed by Jai Singh in his favour to sell 37 Kanals 12 Marlas of land for Rs.40,000/-. The said suit was decreed on November 7, 1984 by the trial Court. Two months time was allowed for deposit of the sale Consideration in the decree. An appeal was filed by Jai Singh which was dismissed on September 9, 1986. During pendency of the appeal an order was obtained staying dispossession. However, at the time of dismissal of the appeal no time was allowed to the plaintiff to deposit the remaining sale consideration. An application under Sec.148 read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the Additional District Judge who vide his order dated October 15, 1986 permitted the decree holder plaintiff to deposit the remaining sale consideration within one month. This was done on November 6, 1986 and thereafter the decree holder moved execution application.

3. Jai Singh, decree-holder, raised objections to the execution of the decree that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, however, the decree-holder did not deposit the amount as ordered by the trial court Some objections were filed by Darshan Singh and others who had purchased part of the suit land on December 12, 1986. Different issues were framed on the objections filed. Ultimately the same was dismissed by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Fazilka, on August 12, 1988.

4. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that after disposal of the appeal in the suit the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Sec.148 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to pass at, order thereon allowing further time for deposit of the sale to consideration. The said order being without jurisdiction is to be ignored and the plaintiff must suffer the consequence as the plaintiff did not insist for the grant of time when the appellate Court decided the appeal. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a decision of Supreme Court in Mahanth Ram Dass V/s. Ganga Das, A. I. R 1961 S. C.882. The ratio of the decision in this case is not at all applicable to the case in hand It was held that the High Court was not powerless to enlarge the time even though it had pre-emptorily fixed the period for payment. Sec.148, in terms, allowed extension of time, even if the original period fixed had expired, hence Sec.149 was equally liberal. In that case order was passed for payment of deficit court-fees and application was moved before the time fixed had run out for extension. The other decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is Smt. Periyakkal and Ors. V/s. Smt. Dakshyant, A. I. R.1983 S. C.428. In that case the parties had entered into a compromise and invited/ the Court to make an order in accordance therewith. The Court passed the order for deposit as contemplated by the parties. The Court could extend the time in appropriate cases. It was observed as under :-

"of course, time would not be extended ordinarily, nor for mere asking. It would be granted in rare cases to prevent manifest injustice. True, the Court would not re-write a contract between the parties but the Court would relieve against a forfeiture clauses; And, where the contract of the parties has merged in the order of the Court, the Courts freedom to act to further the ends of justice would surely not stand curtailed. " Again ratio of the decision referred to above does not help the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner further relies upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Parmeshri V/s. Nauratia, (1984) 86 P. L. R.591. The aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court were discussed. In this case an additional decree for possession on payment of certain am