Compliance with decree terms is crucial; failure results in automatic dismissal.

1. Leave is granted in both the matters.

2. These cross appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 22/08/2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6449 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the High Court of Karnataka has set aside the order dated 15/02/2007 passed by the Trial Court in OS No. 439 of 2006 and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law.

3. The factual background of the case is that on 04/08/2006, one P. R. Yelumalai, who is the appellant in the first appeal, entered into an Agreement of Sale with N. M. Ravi, the respondent in the first appeal, is the absolute owner of the property. The total consideration for the sale was Rs.41,60,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs was paid as advance money towards the total consideration amount. Thereafter, the Seller vide legal notice dated 04/09/2006 sought to cancel the agreement of sale which was refused by the Buyer. This led to filing of a suit for specific performance of the contract by the Buyer P. R. Yelumalai (hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff - Buyer"), before the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kolar, being OS No. 439/2006. The Seller N. M. Ravi (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendant - Seller") conceded to the Plaintiff - Buyer's prayer for performance of the said agreement stating that he had no objection to the Court decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff - Buyer. Accordingly, the suit was decreed on 15/02/2007 and the Plaintiff - Buyer was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.33,60,000/- by way of demand draft, in Court within one month from the date of decree and the Defendant - Seller was directed to execute regular sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff - Buyer, CC of decree. It was made clear by the Trial Court in the decree that if the balance amount of sale consideration is not deposited within one month from the date of decree, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

4. The Plaintiff - Buyer did not deposit the said amount within one month as stipulated in the decree but he filed an application for extension of time for depositing the amount of balance sale consideration and vide order dated 17/03/2007, the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) extended the time by two months. After the extension order, the last date for deposit of the amount fell during the Summer Vacation of the Court. The Plaintiff - Buyer did not deposit the said amount even on the re - opening day after Summer Vacation, i.e. 28/05/2007. But allegedly, he filed a Memo for issue of Receipt Order (RO) for depositing the said amount. However as per the records, the RO was issued on 29/05/2007 and the amount was deposited on the same day by cash.

5. Admittedly, the Defendant - Seller was not served with a copy of the Memo and was not notified with regard to the alleged deposit. The Defendant - Seller sold the property in question to Sri. Rajesh on 20/06/2007, under a registered sale deed. The Plaintiff - Buyer filed Execution Petition No. 88/2008 on 17/03/2008 in the Court of IInd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), which was dismissed on 20/10/2008. The IInd Additional Civil Judge observed as follows:
"7. It is also the contention of the J.Dr. there is no evidence that D.Hr. has deposited the balance consideration on 29/05/2007. Therefore records in OS No. 439/2006 were secured by the Court and perusal of the same, it is revealed that in the order sheet after 170/07 there is an endorsement of the office that consideration amount of Rs.33,60,000.00 is deposited under JD No. 177/07 (RO No. 295806) dated 29/05/2007 and the same endorsement is fou