Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application challenging an order dated 3-12-2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, rejecting the objection (Exhibit 17) filed by the applicants (original defendants/judgment debtors) in Special Darkhast No.21 of 2005. The objection was to the executability of a decree for specific performance of contract passed on 17-3-2004 in Special Civil Suit No.50 of 2001. The applicants were the defendants in the suit filed by the non-applicant/plaintiff for specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed, and the operative part of the decree directed the defendant to execute a sale deed of the suit property (plot admeasuring 91.6 sq. mtrs., City Survey No.2936, Sheet No.25 at Taluka Pauni, Distt. Bhandara and house situated thereon) in the plaintiff's name upon the plaintiff paying balance consideration of Rs.1,08,595/- within two months from the date of the order and deliver possession. It further stated that if the defendant fails to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to deposit the balance consideration in the court and the court shall execute the deed. The applicants contended that the decree was conditional and the plaintiff failed to deposit the balance consideration within two months, making the decree inexecutable. The executing court rejected the objection. The High Court held that the decree was not conditional on the plaintiff depositing the amount within two months; the time limit was for the defendant to execute the deed. The plaintiff could deposit the amount at any time before execution. The executing court cannot go behind the decree. The revision was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Specific Performance - Conditional Decree - The decree directed the defendant to execute sale deed within two months of plaintiff paying balance consideration, and if defendant fails, plaintiff to deposit amount and court to execute deed. The court held that the decree was not conditional on deposit within two months; the time limit was for defendant to execute deed, not for plaintiff to deposit. The plaintiff could deposit at any time before execution. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Objection to Executability - Order 21 Rule 32 CPC - The objection that the decree was inexecutable due to non-deposit within two months was rejected as the decree did not impose a time limit on plaintiff's deposit. The executing court cannot go behind the decree. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decree for specific performance of contract was conditional upon the plaintiff depositing the balance consideration within two months, and whether the execution proceedings were barred as the plaintiff failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time.
Final Decision
The civil revision application is dismissed. The order dated 3-12-2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, rejecting the objection Exhibit 17, is confirmed.
Law Points
- Execution of decree for specific performance
- Objection to executability
- Conditional decree
- Deposit of balance consideration
- Order 21 Rule 32 CPC
