1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11th February, 2005 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Sagar, in MJC No. 1312004 dismissing the application under section 152 CPC filed by present applicants, this revision petition has been filed.

2. Sans unnecessary details facts lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to State that a suit for specific performance of contract and for delivery of possession of suit property, the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint was filed by Abdul Hameed whose L.Rs. are applicants La and 1.b, namely, Bashir Mohd. and Rehana Begum. The said Civil Suit (C.S. No. 3-A/2003) was decreed on 31.1.2004 by learned trial Court directing defendant/respondent Shahhajan Begum to execute a sale-deed in favour of plaintiffs. Learned trial Court further passed a decree that in case defendant fails to execute the sale-deed after receiving balance consideration, the plaintiffs, after depositing the balance amount of the consideration in the Court, shall be entitled to get the sale-deed executed through Court.

3. After decreeing the suit of plaintiff for specific performance of contract, an application under section 152 CPC was filed by the present applicants praying therein to amend the decree by adding cause of delivery of possession. In the application it has been specifically mentioned that in the plaint a specific prayer is made to deliver the possession, but unfortunately on account of human error while passing the judgment and decree, the factum of delivery of possession could not be written.

4. The said application was registered as MJC No. 13/2004 by the Court below and by the impugned order has rejected the said application.

5. Hence this revision petition has been filed by the decree-holders/ applicants.

6. It has been contended by Shri Adil Usmani, learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs that learned Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and has acted illegally, with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction, by dismissing the application under section 152 CPc. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Bata Shoe Co. v. Preetamdas and others [1983 JLJ 422] and has submitted that in a decree for specific performance if no direction is given to deliver possession, such a direction can be issued even in execution proceedings. By inviting my attention to another Single Bench decision of this Court Mohd. Yakub v. Abdul Rauf [2002 (1) MPLJ 475] it has been argued that the decision of Bata Shoe Co. (supra) has been placed reliance in this decision and the same principle of law has been followed. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on decision of this Court Shrikrishna Gupta v. Sitaram Mohanswaroop Nigam [1997 (2) MPLJ 501].

7. In the present case, despite respondent has been served, none has appeared on his behalf.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and after perusal of the record and the impugned order, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be allowed.

9. On going through the plaint averments of plaintiffs in their suit for specific performance of contract, this Court finds that there is specific prayer of plaintiffs to deliver possession of the suit property to them from the defendant. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of contract and directed the defendant to get the sale-deed executed in favour of plaintiffs, failing which the plaintiffs shall be free to deposit the amount of balance of consideration and get the sale-deed executed through Court. The suit was decreed with costs. In the entire judgment the trial Court has not held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for possession. If the trial Court was of the view that plaintiffs are not entitled for possession, certainly it would have been mentioned in the judgment and reasons must have also been assigned. B