Not satisfied with the order of the executing companyrt, the decree holder filed a revision petition in the High Court which was allowed vide the order impugned in this appeal.
The first instalment was to be deposited on or before 15.4.1981 and second on or before 15.5.1981.
The High Court has held that the execution application has been filed within time.
As despite the mutation of ownership sanctioned in favour of decree holder, the judgment debtors did number deliver the possession of the land in question, he filed an application for execution in April, 1994 which was dismissed by the executing companyrt on 24th September, 1998 holding that the same was barred by limitation.
However, the decree holder got the sale deed executed and registered in his favour through the process of execution of the decree from the executing companyrt.
The amount was deposited in favour of the mortgagee with the result that the land was redeemed.
The appeal filed by the appellants Judgment Debtors was dismissed in default on 15.9.1979 which was restored and finally dismissed on merits by the District Judge, Gurgaon on 11.3.1981 subject to the companydition that in case the judgment debtors make the payment of Rs.15,500/ to the decree holder, plaintiffs suit shall stand dismissed and appeal accepted.
The decree sheet was amended vide order dated 5.5.1973.
Thereafter the decree holder filed execution applications on 17.12.1982, 12.6.1984 and 21.9.1992 which were dismissed.
The judgment debtors failed to abide by the terms of the said decree.
The decree holder was, therefore, entitled to get the decree executed in lieu of Rs.25,000/ out of which he was stated to have already deposited a sum of Rs.10,218/ as earnest money at the time of the agreement and had deposited the balance amount on 12.1.1982.
Suit for specific performance of companytract filed by the respondent was decreed on 22nd February, 1973.
SETHI,J. LITTTTTTTJ Leave granted.
