1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 408 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 800 OF 2007 Sorom S.Rangwala, .. Applicant vs. Aditya Garg & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.V.Anurkar, i/b. Sugandh B.Deshmukh,Advocates, for the applicant. Mr.J.S.Kini,i/b. Suresh Dubey, Advocates, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 23rd June, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent No.1 had filed Special Civil Suit No.369 of 2007 for specific performance of the contract alleging that there was an agreement under which the defendant/present applicant had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for Rs.65 lakh. The defendant had contended that she had proposed to sell the property for Rs.1.5 crore. There was no written agreement between the parties. A.O. No.800/2007 filed by the original defendant was disposed of by this Court on 17.1.2008 with consent of the parties and the trial Court was directed to appoint a Government Valuer for the purpose of valuation of the property within 2 two weeks. It was further directed that the plaintiff shall deposit the amount as per the valuation made by such valuer after deducting the amount of Rs.5 lakh which he claimed to have already paid to the defendant. It was further made clear that if the parties would not agree to settle the dispute on the basis of that valuation, the amount which may be deposited by the plaintiff with the Court shall be invested in fixed deposit for an appropriate term till decision of the suit. 3. One Mr. U.V.Dhongde, Government approved valuer was appointed and he had submitted the valuation report which was not acceptable to both the parties and, therefore, with consent of the parties as per the order dated 9.8.2008 the trial Court was directed to ignore that report and to appoint another Government Valuer for valuation of the property. Accordingly, another valuer was appointed, who submitted his report on 4.1.2009. As per his report, on 11.2.2007, when the alleged agreement had taken place, the market value of the property was Rs.1.41 crore, but due to fall in the property price by December 2008/January 2009, the value had come down by 10% and it would be Rs.1.27 crore. Even though that report was submitted in January 2009, the plaintiff has not deposited the said amount so far. He simply raised an objection to the valuation report again and refused to deposit money taking a plea that this Court has not fixed the time to deposit the amount. By this Application, the 3 applicant/original defendant seeks to clarify that order as to when the amount should be deposited. 4. In fact, if the above referred two orders by this Court and particularly the order dated 17.1.2008, make it clear that the order was passed with consent of the parties and the plaintiff had agreed to deposit the amount as per the valuation after deduction of Rs.5 lakh which he claims to have already paid. The order makes it clear that if the parties would not agree to settle the suit on the basis of valuation, the amount would remain in fixed deposit with a Nationalised Bank till the suit was finally decided. The amount was expected to be deposited within reasonable time which could be about one or two months and not more than that. However, the plaintiff has not deposited the money for last one and half years for no justification. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent contends that he is willing to deposit amount of Rs.65 lakh which, according to him, was the agreed price. This statement is in clear violation and breach of the order passed by this Court on 17.1.2008 with consent of the parties. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to flout the orders of this Court passed with the consent of the parties. 5. In view of the above circumstances, the plaintiff/respondent is granted one month's time from this day to deposit the balance amount treating the 4 valuation at Rs.1.41 crore as on 11.2.2007 after deduction of Rs.5 lakh which he claims to have already paid. If he fails to deposit the money, the trial Court shall take note of this fact while considering the question as to whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 6. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose of the suit as early as possible and preferably by the end of September,2010. With these directions, the Application stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)