Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties on several dates.

2. This writ petition has been filed by judgment-debtor. Petitioner-Judgment-Debtor executed an agreement for sale in favour of respondent on 16.7.1990 agreeing to sell his land admeasuring 0.83 acres @ Rs. 17,000/- per Biswa and received Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money. Thereafter respondent filed Original Suit No. 281 of 1989 against the petitioner for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement for sale. (In between Rs. 80,000/- had been paid as part of said consideration). The suit was decreed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Varanasi on 31.7.1998. Against the said judgment and decree appeal was filed by the petitioner but the said appeal was dismissed for non-payment of the Court fees. (Naturally there was no question of any stay order in appeal as it was defective). Thereafter plaintiff filed execution in the form of Execution Case No. 43 of 1998, on 6.10.1998.

3. In the operative portion of the decree it was provided as follows :

“Defendant is directed that in case plaintiff within two months pays him the entire balance sale consideration then the defendant should execute the sale deed in terms of the Agreement, otherwise plaintiff would be entitled to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court and get the sale deed executed through Court. Sale deed will be registered only when plaintiff files approval of Competent authority under the Ceiling Act and no objection certificate from Income-Tax Department.”

Copy of the order sheet of Executing Court has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit dated 27.11.2006 filed by the petitioner. In the order sheet of 27.2.1999 it is mentioned that the decree holder should within one-month file no-objection from the Ceiling Officer and shall deposit the remaining amount in Court. Thereafter 12 dates were fixed but the case could not be taken up. Thereafter on 22.12.2000 it was mentioned that the file should be put up on 12.1.2001 and decree holder should comply with the order dated 27.2.1999. Similarly on 12.1.2001 it was directed that the file should be put up on 3.2.2001 and decree holder should comply with the order dated 27.2.1999. Thereafter on 3.2.2001 judgment-Debtor filed objections under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act read with Section 47, CPC, which were directed to be registered as Miscellaneous Case. In the said order it is also mentioned, “Decree holder has moved an application to accepting the tender. Keep it on file. Put up on the date fixed for disposal.

Put up on 2.3.2001 for disposal.”

Objections of the judgment-debtor were registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 40 of 2001. Thereafter 20 dates were fixed but the cases could not be taken up. Thereafter on 23.8.2002 execution was dismissed and objections of judgment Debtor under Section 28 Specific Relief Act were allowed. The said order is Annexure ‘1’ to the writ petition. In the said order it was noted that till the date of the said order balance sale consideration had not been deposited by the decree holder. It was further directed that judgment-dDebtor should return the earnest money within a month. The Court while passing the order dated 23.8.2002 placed reliance upon the Supreme Court Authority reported in V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. C. Alaqappan, AIR 1999 SC 918. Thereafter Decree holder filed review petition before the Execution Court. The successor Presiding Officer of the Court concerned allowed the review petition through order dated 7.7.2003 and set aside the order dated 23.8.2002 passed by his predecessor. Copy of the order on review petition is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It is interesting to not e that even until the date on which review was allowed i.e. 7.7.2003 the balance sale consideration had not been deposited by the decree holder. In the review order it is mentioned that on 3.2.2001 decree holder had submitted the tender, which was sufficient. Submitting the tender never amounts to paymen