IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.10687 of 2011 SMT.PRABHAWATI DEVI Versus NILESH SHARMA --------------- 02. 11.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application is filed against the order dated 19.04.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge IV, Patna in Title Suit No.400 of 2007 rejecting the application of the defendant-petitioner dated 28.01.2011 whereby the prayer of the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.1,20,000 with cost has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was defendant in the suit for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The said suit was decreed and in the judgment, it was specifically directed by the Court that if it is not possible to execute the sale deed by the defendant-petitioner within three months after depositing money as directed to the plaintiff, the defendant may return the amount of Rs.1,20,000 with cost. According to that direction, the petitioner filed the application seeking permission to deposit the same but the learned Court below without considering this fact rejected the application. From perusal of the judgment of the trial court which is Annexure-I to this writ application, it appears that there is specific finding of the learned Court below at paragraph 9 of the judgment that plaintiff is entitled to a 2 decree for specific performance of contract with regard to Schedule-I property and, therefore, ultimately the learned Court below directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance consideration amount within one month failing which it was directed that the plaintiff will be entitled to get back the advance amount of Rs.1,20,000. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the plaintiff within the said one month deposited the balance consideration amount in the Court and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected. In such circumstances, in my opinion, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the learned Court below and the interpretation given by the petitioner regarding the last portion of the judgment is not acceptable. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Thus, it is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)