Late deposit of balance sale consideration was justified under the circumstances, observing procedural compliance and bona fide actions of the decree holder.

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner judgment debtor is aggrieved by the order dated 11.7.2016 by which, the Executing Court has allowed application Exh.3 in Special Darkhast No.36/2015 and the decree holder was granted permission to deposit the balance consideration amount of Rs.5,01,000/- in the Court and since the amount was already deposited by D. D. No. 072429, on 13.3.2015, the application was disposed off.

3. The factual matrix of this case is that the petitioner judgment debtor had entered into an agreement to sell an agricultural land bearing Kh. No.52, admeasuring 3.64 Hectors, on 2.5.2000, to the respondents for a consideration of Rs.7,51,000/-. As the sale deed was not executed, the decree holder preferred S.C.S. No.386/2005 seeking specific performance of the contract, possession of the suit land and an injunction against the defendant. By judgment dated 12.11.2008, the suit was decreed and the decree holder was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.5,01,000/- within 30 days from the date of the order and the judgment debtor was directed to execute the sale deed.

4. On 15.12.2008, the decree holder filed an application for grant of permission to deposit the said amount. By order dated 19.1.2009 the application was allowed and the decree holder deposited the amount. However, on 21.1.2009, the judgment debtor fled a first appeal before this Court bearing No.335/2009 and sought a stay to the judgment and decree. On 5.2.2009, the decree holder realized that one of its staff members had issued cheque from a non - operative account and, therefore, a demand draft was prepared and an application was moved on 6.2.2009 seeking permission to deposit the demand draft.

5. On 5.3.2009, the judgment debtor moved an application under S.28(3) of the Specific Relief Act seeking a rescission of contract. On 23.4.2009, the judgment of the trial Court was stayed in the first appeal. The decree holder tendered a reply to the application of the judgment debtor on 6.5.2009. Considering these developments, the demand draft deposited by the decree holder before the trial Court, was returned by the office of the trial Court on 20.5.2009 since the demand draft was not to be deposited in view of the judgment being stayed by this Court.

6. On account of the change in the pecuniary jurisdiction / enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court, the first appeal preferred by the judgment debtor in this Court was transferred to the District Court on 8.2.2012. After it was received, it was renumbered as R.C.A. No.206/2012. By the judgment dated 28.8.2013, the R.C.A. No.206/2012 was dismissed.

7. The judgment debtor moved Second Appeal No.500/2013 which was dismissed by this Court on 23.12.2013. The Special Leave Petition filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed on 5.5.2014 by the Hon' ble Apex Court and the Review Petition filed by the judgment debtor was rejected on 24.9.2014.

8. The decree holder, after getting the knowledge of the dismissal of the proceedings before the Hon' ble Apex Court, moved an application accompanied with a fresh demand draft for Rs.5,01,000/- along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The trial Court permitted the presentation of the demand draft on 13.3.2015. By order dated 11.7.2016, impugned in this petition, the application for condonation of delay was granted by