Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ruprao Nagorao Zade, was the judgment debtor in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The suit was decreed on 12.11.2008, directing the decree holder (respondents) to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.5,01,000/- within 30 days and the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed. The decree holder applied for permission to deposit on 15.12.2008, which was allowed on 19.1.2009, and the amount was deposited via cheque. However, on 21.1.2009, the judgment debtor filed a first appeal (FA No.335/2009) before the High Court. On 5.2.2009, the decree holder discovered that the cheque was from a non-operative account due to a staff error, and on 6.2.2009, they sought permission to deposit via demand draft. The judgment debtor opposed, arguing that the appeal operated as a stay and the deposit was beyond the 30-day period. The Executing Court allowed the deposit on 11.7.2016, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court held that the Executing Court has inherent power to permit deposit beyond the stipulated period, especially when the delay was not intentional and the decree holder was ready and willing. The court noted that no stay order was produced, and the appeal did not automatically stay execution. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Executing Court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Deposit of Balance Consideration - Specific Performance - The decree holder sought permission to deposit the balance consideration after the stipulated period due to a bank error; the Executing Court allowed the deposit. The judgment debtor challenged this order. Held that the Executing Court has the power to permit deposit beyond the period fixed in the decree, especially when the delay was not intentional and the decree holder was ready and willing to perform. (Paras 2-10) B) Civil Procedure - Stay of Decree - Effect on Execution - The judgment debtor argued that the first appeal operated as a stay, but no stay order was produced. Held that mere filing of an appeal does not automatically stay execution; the decree remains executable unless a stay is granted. (Paras 5-8) C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - The decree holder deposited the amount before the appeal was filed, indicating readiness. The subsequent delay in deposit due to bank error was not a ground to deny execution. (Paras 4-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Executing Court was justified in allowing the decree holder to deposit the balance consideration amount after the expiry of the period stipulated in the decree, and whether the judgment debtor's appeal against the decree operates as a stay preventing such deposit.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 11.7.2016 passed by the Executing Court is upheld. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- deposit of balance consideration
- execution proceedings
- condonation of delay
- Order XXI Rule 32 CPC
