D.P. SINGH, J.

1. Pleadings have been exchanged and the counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be finally disposed of under the Rules of the Court.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 7.12.1993 and 2.11.1996 by which the application of the petitioner for enlargement of time to make payment has been rejected.

4. It would be appropriate to notice the relevant pedigree for a proper understanding of the dispute.

Sunda
Kaley			Tota
Shami	Nagli		Bhunda
Mangu	Jai Chandra	Dharam Pal	Krishna Devi	Jagwati Devi

5. From the above pedigree, which is admitted between the parties, it is evident that Sunda was the original owner of the disputed dwelling house and was survived by his sons, namely, Kaley and Tota. Tota left behind his son Bhunda while Kaley was succeeded by Shami and Nagli. Shami and Nagli transferred their undivided share in the ancestral dwelling house in favour of Harkesh the contesting respondent No. 3. Harkesh filed Original Suit No. 713 of 1982 for partiti