IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.440 of 2008 Binay Krishna son of late Raghunandan Prasad, resident of Mohalla Jhing Nagar, Biharsharif, P.O. and P.S. Biharsharif, Distt- Nalanda, presently resident of 23, Saurav Extensive Apartment, Post Office Road, Shastrinagar, Patna, P.O. and P.S. Shastrinagar, Distt. Patna ---- Defendant/Petitioner--- ---------- Petitioner. Versus 1. Ashok Kumar 2. Jitendra Bhushan Vidayarthi., both are sons of Munsi Sao, resident of Mohalla Ali Nagar, Biahrsharif, P.O. & P.S. Biharsharif, District-Nalanda --- Plaitniffs – Opposite Parties ---Opposite Parties. ------------ 4. 30.7.2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. S.K. Mazumdar for the plaintiffs-opposite parties. This civil revision application under the provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 2.1.2008, passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge I, Biharsharif, Nalanda, in Title Suit No.11 of 2006 (Ashok Kumar and others Vrs. Vinay Krishna), whereby the defendant (petitioner herein) has been directed to execute registered deed of absolute sale in favour of the plaintiffs (opposite parties herein) within the time stated therein. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this civil revision application may be indicated. The plaintiffs (opposite parties herein) instituted the said Title 2 Suit No.11 of 2006 for specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed by the judgment dated 24.9.2007, whereby the plaintiffs were directed to deposit the balance of consideration money in court, and the defendants were directed to execute the registered deed of absolute sale in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants did not execute the registered sale deed, and instead filed the aforesaid application in terms of Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, praying therein to rescind the contract. It is stated that deposit of the consideration money in court was no deposit in the eye of law, because there was no such direction by the Court. Therefore, the plaintiffs have in law failed to perform their part of the contract. The application has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the plaintiffs deposited the balance of the consideration money in court under its orders, and the defendants have accordingly been directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs by 2.2.2008 Hence this civil revision application at the instance of the defendants. 3. It appears to us that the defendants took untenable ground before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge. The 3 plaintiffs have deposited the balance of the consideration money in court in view of its orders. The application has, therefore, been rightly rejected. The defendants appear to us to be engaging themselves in unethical practice, and adopting delaying tactics to deprive the plaintiffs of the fruits of the decree. We do not find any merit in this application. 4. In the result, this civil revision application is rejected. Learned Sub-ordinate Judge is directed to proceed in accordance with law. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. )