The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the trial court to extend the time for deposit of balance sale consideration based on the circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the CPC, 1908.

KULDIP SINGH, J.

1. Impugned in present revision is order dated 28.4.2017 (Annexure-P-7), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, vide which objections filed by JDs No. 1 and 2 to the execution were dismissed. Also impugned is the order dated 1.5.2017 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, vide which proposed sale deed alongwith demand draft of balance sale consideration amounting to Rs. 31,50,000/- was allowed to be deposited in the Court and the case was adjourned to 3.5.2017 for filing the objections to the draft of the proposed sale deed.

2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.

3. The brief background of the case is that plaintiffs-decree-holders filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of sale agreement dated 24.9.2009, in which it was inter alia agreed that defendants No.1 and 2-petitioners were to get the property redeemed and get the title deeds of ownership released from defendant No. 3 bank, but they have not done so, nor they have got the original papers released from defendant No. 3 bank. They have failed to execute the sale deed within given time. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.2014. Defendants were directed to perform their part of contract by executing sale deed in favour of plaintiffs as per terms of agreement of sell Ex.PW4/A within a period of two months. It was further directed that if defendants fail to perform their part of contract within prescribed time, then plaintiffs can get the contract specifically enforced by way of agency of the Court. However, in particular circumstances of the case, there was no need to pass any order directing defendant No. 3 bank to deliver the original conveyance deed or title deed to the plaintiffs.

4. Defendants No.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District, Gurugram, which was dismissed on 15.7.2015 and following order was passed :-

'As a sequel to above mentioned findings, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed being devoid of merit, with no order as to costs. The impugned judgment and decree dated 9.10.2014, passed by learned trial Court is affirmed vide which suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed with costs. Accordingly, the defendants No. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to perform their part of contract by executing sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs as per terms of agreement to sell Ex. PW4/A within a period of two months from the date of passing of this judgment. If the defendants No. 1 and 2 fail to perform their part of contract within prescribed time, then plaintiffs can get the contract specifically enforced by way of agency of court. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Trial court's record alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith through Presiding Officer, for consignment and the appeal file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.'

5. Admittedly, Regular Second Appeal No. 4548 of 2010 was dismissed by this Court on 15.3.2016 and consequently the decree became final. When the execution was filed, the objections were raised by JDs to the execution stating that balance sale consideration of Rs. 31,50,000/- was to be deposited within two months from the date of passing of decree which has not been deposited. Therefore, decree has become null and void. The said amount was not deposited by JDs or in the Court by filing application under Section 28 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short 'the Act'). Some more averments were made. However, before this Court, petitioners have confined their prayer only to the point that since balance sale consideration was not deposited within time granted by the Court, therefore, under Section 28 of the Act, the decree has become null and void.

6. The decree became final only on 15.3.2016 when RSA was dismissed by this Court. The order of learn