KBP 2783-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2783 OF 2009 Vitthal Rajaram Thorat ..Petitioner Vs. Mukta Dilip Kangude and ors. ..Respondents ......... Ms.Manjiri Parasnis, for petitioner. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 5 th August, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. The Petitioner is the first defendant. First to sixth respondents herein are the original plaintiffs. The Suit filed by said plaintiffs had been decreed and the petitioner has been directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs by accepting remaining amount of Rs.500/- from the plaintiffs. An application was made by the plaintiffs before the trial court contending that though the plaintiffs had offered to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the petitioner the said amount was not accepted by the petitioner and, therefore, the plaintiffs were desirous of depositing the said amount in the court. On the said application, by the impugned order dated 6 th March, 2007 the learned trial Judge directed the Asst. Superintendent of the said Court to accept a sum of Rs.500/- from the plaintiffs. 2] The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order amounts to grant extension of time in purported exercise of power under section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The KBP 2783-09.sxw 2 submission is that after expiry of thirty days, the power under section 148 of the said Code could not have been exercised. Another submission by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the amount ought to have been deposited in the executing court as the court which passed the decree has become functus officio. 3] I have considered the submissions. On plain reading of the decree, it appears that there is no specific time limit fixed for depositing the amount of Rs.500/-. On plain reading of impugned order it is obvious that the same has not been passed in exercise of power under section 148 of the said code. The order merely directs the Asst. Superintendent to accept the amount of Rs.500/-. It is not in dispute that the application filed by the plaintiffs for execution of the decree for specific performance is pending. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to execute the decree by obtaining sale deed from the petitioner will have to be decided in the pending execution application. Merely because the original plaintiffs are permitted to deposit the amount, the same will not affect the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending execution application. 4] Considering the nature of impugned order, subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. )