Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)Sunity Chandra Bose vs Nil Ratan Sinha on 15 March, 1985
7. The principles laid down by the Division Bench of the Calcutta
High Court in the aforesaid decision in my opinion squarely apply to
the case on hand. The court below has by the impugned order
permitted the plaintiff to set off or adjust the sum of Rs.41,760/-
awarded by the trial court as costs, from the balance sale
consideration payable by him. On the terms of the judgment/decree
passed in the suit, the plaintiff was bound to deposit the sum of
Rs.1,15,000/- towards balance sale consideration. The decree does
not permit him to pay the amount in installments or to deduct the
costs awarded by the trial court. The court below could not have in my
opinion granted the relief prayed for in E.A.No.64 of 2013. Though the
court which passed the decree has the power under section 28(1) of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to enlarge the time for deposit of the
balance sale consideration, the execution court could not have allowed
the plaintiff to set off or adjust the sum of Rs.41,760/- from the
C.R.P.No.236 of 2014
-:7:-
balance sale consideration payable by him. On the terms of the decree
and judgment passed in the instant case, the plaintiff was bound to
deposit the entire sale consideration and apply for the execution and
registration of a sale deed in his favour and for delivery of the
property. He could not have in my opinion set off or adjusted the sum
of Rs.41,760/- awarded to him by way of costs by the trial court from
the balance sale consideration payable by him. His remedy to realise
the costs awarded by the trial court lies under Order XXI Rule 32 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order cannot therefore in
my opinion be sustained.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1