The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's jurisdiction to extend the time under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even when the time is fixed in a consent decree, to prevent manifest injustice and relieve against a forfeiture clause.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. - The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 20.9.1996, whereby objections filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor, to the execution of the decree dated 9.8.1990, were dismissed.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No.345 of 29.8.1988 for specific performance of the agreement of sale of the land measuring 35 kanals 14 marlas. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant-petitioner has received Rs.30,000/- as earnest money.

3. On 9.8.1990, the parties entered into a settlement whereby the defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-to the plaintiff on or before 31.10.1990 and the remaining amount of Rs.58,325/-on or before 31.10.1991, total Rs.83,325/-. In terms of the decree, if the defendant fails to make the payment, the suit for specific performance of the agreement was to be granted. The relevant extract of the decree reads as under:-

“This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Shri A.B.Bhandari, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiff and Shri J.S.Mouji, Advocate, counsel for the defendant, it is hereby ordered that the defendant has made the statement that he has no objection if the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement is decreed subject to the condition that he will pay Rs.25000/-to the plaintiff upto 31st October, 1990 and remaining amount of Rs.58,325/-in two installments upto 31st October, 1991, total Rs.83,325/-and in that case the plaintiff shall not be entitled to execute a decree against him and in case he fails to pay the aforesaid amount as per the agreement, within stipulated time, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the decree executed against him. In view of the aforesaid statement of the defendant, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed accordingly. Parties have been left to bear their own costs.”

4. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- before 31.10.1990, but the remaining amount was not accepted by the decree holder when offered. Thus, the petitioner filed the objection petition before the learned Execution Court to the effect that the decree cannot be executed and the same be dismissed.

5. The learned Executing Court found that in terms of the decree, a sum of Rs.58,325/-was to be paid by the judgment debtor upto 31.10.1991 in two installments. But having not paid the same, the plaintiff is entitled to execute the decree for specific performance.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-before 31.10.1990. The plaintiff denied the receipt of the said amount, but admitted the same during the course of arguments. It is also pointed out that the decree holder refused to accept the balance amount and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek execution of the decree as the petitioner was always ready and willing to deposit the balance amount of Rs.58,325/-. In any case, the Court has a power to extend the time for deposit of the said amount in terms of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Lok Adalat, the payment of Rs.58,330/-was tendered to the decree holder on 19.11.2001. However, the said amount was not accepted by the decree holder on 2.5.2002 and the same was returned to the counsel for the petitioner on 3.5.2002.

7. The suit of the plaintiff for specific performance was decreed as for payment of the amount. The amount agreed to be paid was Rs.83,325/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.25,000/-stands paid before 31.10.1990. The dispute is the payment of remaining amount of Rs.58,325/-. As per the petitioner, he has offered to pay the said amount to the respondent, but the same was not accepted. The fact remains that the said amount was not deposited. Having not done so, the question which arises is whether the petitioner has made out a case for extens