ORDER :

M.B. Shah, D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.

Leave to appeal is granted.

The counsel for the parties are finally heard on merit of the case.

2. The appellant obtained a decree of specific performance of the suit property against the respondent. The terms of the decree read thus:

"The suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 16-5-1987 of the land measuring 30 kanals 14 marlas is decreed with costs. The defendant is ordered to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance consideration. Registration charge has to be paid by the plaintiff. In case the defendant fails to execute the sale deed within one month from the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the sale deed executed in execution of the decree on depositing balance consideration charges through court."

3. When the appellant as decree-holder sought execution of the above decree through court, the respondent as judgment-debtor objected to the execution stating that in terms of the decree (abovequoted) the decree-holder failed to tender the sale price to the judgment-debtor within a period of one month. The executing court dismissed the objection of the judgment-debtor. Aggrieved thereby the judgment-debtor preferred civil revision petition under Rule 115 Civil Procedure Code to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

4. The High Court allowed the revision preferred by the judgment-debtor by construing the decree to have contained a requirement on the part of the decree-holder to pay or tender the sale price to the judgment-debtor within a period of one month. The High Court also observed that the decree passed on 18-1-1991 is sought to be executed in the year 1993 and there is thus no equity in favour of the decree-holder to permit him to deposit the balance sale consideration in the year 1995 and obtain registered conveyance of the suit land from the judgment-debtor. The High Court further held, Bhajan Sigh v. Gurbax Singh, 2001 AIHC 4700 (P&S) that in such circumstances, the defendant could have been allowed to rescind the contract of sale of the property.

5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the terms of the decree, we find that the High Court has adopted a hypertechnical approach. The High Court has erred in importing equitable consideration at the time of execution of a decree granted for specific performance. The terms of the decree which have been quoted above do not contain a clear direction to the decree-holder to deposit the sale consideration within a period of one month.

6. Reasonably construed, the first part of the direction in the decree is to allow the parties to make registered conveyance mutually without recourse to the executing court within a period of one month of the decree. In the second part of the decree it is directed that if the parties fail to obtain such a conveyance outside the court within a period of one month, the plaintiff would be at liberty to approach the court for seeking execution of the decree after depositing the balance consideration in the court.

7. In opposing the appeal, the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor, however, appears reasonable that because of non-tendering of the sale consideration within one month and delay in execution of the decree, there has been a loss of interest on the amount of sale consideration to the judgment-debtor.

8. We allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 20-4-2001 in Bhajan Singh v. Gurbux Singhh, 2001 AIHC 4700 (P&S) Consequently the order of the executing court is restored. The decree-holder, however, shall also be liable to make payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the sale consideration from the date of decree to the date of deposit of sale consideration in the executing court for payment to the judgment-debtor.

Payment of the deposit in terms of the decree and our order be made with