( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by the defendants against an order of a learned Munsif of kheri dated the 28th of November 1950 extending the time granted to the opposite-party for making the deposit of a sum of money which represented the sale consideration in respect of a decree that was made by that court for specific performance of a contract of sale.

( 2 ) THIS revision in the first instance came up before a learned single Judge who referred it to a bench for decision because a question of some importance arose namely, whether the court below had the power to extend the period for making the deposit after the court had fixed the period for the deposit in the order by which it disposed of the suit for specific performance.

( 3 ) ON the 16th of November 1944 a decree for specific performance was made in favour of one lalman Sah as against Kashi Prasad and one Kunj Behari. The plaintiff Lalman Sah sued to enforce a contract of sale which had been entered into between him and Kashi Prasad. Kunj Behari was no party to this contract nor was he in the first instance a party to the suit. Kunj Behari Lal, however, applied to be made a party to the suit as he claimed title to the property and he was thereafter added as a party.

( 4 ) THE trial court decreed the suit in the following terms:

"the suit for specific performance of the contract to sell the house in suit is decreed against the defendants. Plaintiff is allowed one months time to deposit the sum of Rs. 275/ -. On this sum being deposited, defendant 1 shall execute the sale-deed three months from today failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to have the sale deed executed through. Court. The costs of execution and registration of the sale deed shall be borne by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs costs of the suit shall be paid by defendant 2 who is responsible for all this litigation. "

( 5 ) AN appeal was preferred against the decision of the learned Munsif by Kunj Behari who was defendant No. 2-- neither Lalman Sah nor Kashi Prasad defendant No. 1 appear to have challenged the decision of the Court below by appeal. The appeal was decided on 23rd of february 1945. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the trial Court was affirmed. On 23rd of March 1945 Lalman Sah, the plaintiff, deposited a sum of Rs. 275/- which he was directed to deposit for getting specific performance of the sale. Defendant Kashi Prasad, however, had not executed a sale deed in favour of Lalman Sah after the decree which had been made for specific performance of the contract against him so that Lalman Sah after he made his deposit of the sale consideration made an application in the execution department for having a sale deed executed through the mediation of the Court by Kashi Prasad. Kashi Prasad took objection to the execution of the sale deed and one of the grounds that he took was that he was no more bound to execute a sale deed nor could the Court force him to execute the deed because the plaintiff Lalman Sah had not made the deposit of the sale consideration within the time fixed by the trial Court, namely, within one month from 16th of November 1944. The contention of Lalman Sah was that there having been an appeal against the decision of the trial Court the decision of that Court was in jeopardy and therefore, he was not bound to deposit the amount till the decree of the trial Court had not been finally affirmed in appeal. It may be pointed out that Lalman Sahs deposit was within one month of the date of the decision of the appeal. The executing Court came to the conclusion that Kashi Prasad could not be forced to execute the sale deed and therefore the application for execution was dismissed. The matter came up to this court ultimately and on 16th of March 1950, the late Mr. Justice Kidwai, held that on the terms of the decree as it then stood the deposit of the sale consideration by Lalman Sah must be held to have been made beyond time and therefore the Court be