1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3874 OF 2009 1. M/s. Prime Properties & ors. ....Petitioners vs 1. Hiraman Sayaji Bhote & ors. ....Respondents Mr. P.S. Dani for the Petitioners. Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. By an order dated 3rd August, 2009, the parties were put to notice that the matter may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. Accordingly, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Trial Court dictated the judgment in the Petitioners suit for specific performance on 20th January, 2009. The suit was decreed for specific performance, subject to the condition that the Petitioners 2 should deposit the balance consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- in the trial court on or before 20th February, 2009. It was further stated that otherwise, the suit would be dismissed. The Petitioners had already paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Admittedly, the signed copy of the judgment was available to the parties only on 5th March, 2009. It was, therefore, not possible for the Petitioners to deposit the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- on 20th February, 2009. The Petitioners, therefore, understandably and justifiably made an application for extension of time to deposit the amount on the very next day i.e. 6th March, 2009. In these circumstances, the Petitioner’s application for extension of time to deposit the amount ought to have been granted for the asking. The Petitioners could not be faulted for not having deposited the amount on or before 20th February, 2009, when the Trial Court had not even made the judgment available till 5th March, 2009. 4. The Trial Court held against the Petitioners on the ground that when the judgment was dictated in open court, the Petitioners were present. 3 5. This approach was entirely incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A party understandably would be entitled to wait till the signed copy of the judgment is available to comply with the order such as one which requires the party to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. 6. Even assuming that the Petitioners had heard the judgment requiring them to deposit the amount on or before 20th February, 2009, and sought to comply with the same, the office of the Trial Court could not have accepted the tender as a copy of the judgment was not available. 7. By an order dated 3rd August, 2009, in this Writ Petition, the Petitioners were directed to deposit the balance amount. The Petitioners have complied with the order. The same is, therefore, confirmed as compliance with the decree. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. This order, however, is without prejudice to the Respondents appeal against the decree. The Petitioners also filed an appeal against the said order. This, the Petitioners had to do to obviate any further technical hurdle. Needless to add that the said appeal would have to be disposed of in 4 accordance with this order. 8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.