ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This second appeal was heard by this Court on 26th March, 2004 and after hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the same was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid second appeal.
2. The judgment debtor filed an objection that the plaintiff-decree holder put his decree into execution, which has resulted into the proceeding, which has come up to this Court in the form of present second appeal. The decree having been passed for specific performance of the contract for sale and the decree holder deposited the consideration in the Court towards the execution. The Judgment debtor submitted in his objection that the decree is unexecutable because the amount deposited by the decree holder is not the full amount, which the decree holder should deposit. This objection is based on fact that the Judgment debtor is decree holder against the present decree holder in another suit. The part of the money deposited by decree holder of present suit is adjusted towards the satisfaction of earlier decree between the parties, thus the amount is short so far as present execution is concerned. It is not disputed that the amount deposited without adjustment is full amount. The trial court rejected the aforesaid objection and directed the decree to be executed.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the judgment debtor preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court affirming the order passed by the trial court dismissed the appeal. Both the courts below have recorded finding of fact that the amount so attached pursuant to an earlier decree between the parties, cannot be permitted to be made good of the decree holder, because he pursuant to the decree in question has deposited the entire amount, which ought to have deposited for the execution of the decree. In the teeth of these findings, which have been affirmed by the lower appellate court, this Court in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not find any ground for interference. This appeal therefore has no force and is therefore dismissed. The interim order. If any, stands vacated.