Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 96 , 152, O.XX R. 6, O.XLVII

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----Ss. 96 & 152, O.XX R. 6, O.XLVII, R. 1--Agreement to sell--Suit for specific performance--Statement of defendant admitting willingness to perform agreement--Suit decreed subject to deposit of remaining sale consideration and deficient court fee within fifteen days--Failure of plaintiff to deposit amount--Decree alleged to be ambiguous--Civil appeal dismissed--Civil revision dismissed--Review petition filed on plea of ambiguity in decree--No application under for correction/amendment--Executing Court competent to interpret decree in light of judgment--Decree to be construed as a whole--Negligence of counsel attributable to litigant--Rapid escalation in prices of immovable property--Error apparent on face of record--Scope of review--Admittedly, the applicant had remained unable to deposit the remaining consideration during the trial or appeal. No attempt had been made to seek clarification or amendment in the decree by filing application under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the ‘Code’), which permitted the Court to amend the decree on account of any clerical or arithmetical mistake or error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission--Even otherwise, in case of ambiguity, lexecuting Court was entitled to look into contents of the order or judgment to ascertain the real nature of the relief or its extent--Executing Court could have been requested to give effect to the judgment due to alleged error or discrepancy or inconsistency or ambiguity in the language of the decree--It was settled that a document was to be construed as a whole and should not be confined only to few words, in order to understand the relief sought in a suit one had to see the facts on which relief was based--Negligence of the counsel was the negligence of the party because he acted as an agent of the principal--However, in view of rapid increase in prices of immovable properties, seller could not be left at the mercy of the buyer to bind him and then delay the completion of contract by hiding behind an archaic legal principle that in contracts involving immovable properties, time was generally not of the…