The decree for specific performance remains executable despite delays in deposit of balance sale consideration, provided no rescission is sought by judgment debtors.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 30-8-2022 in Civil Revision Application No. 3723/2019 by which the Revision Application filed by the respondents-herein (original defendants) came to be allowed thereby setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the original plaintiffs decree holder on the plaintiffs depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- within 15 days from 6-5-2019.

3. The controversy revolves around in a narrow compass.

4. The appellant before us is the original plaintiff. He instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale with the respondents-herein (original defendants)/judgment debtors. The suit came to be decreed in favour of appellant-plaintiff vide Judgment and order dated 20-1-2012. The operative part of the decree passed by the Trial Court reads thus:

“Suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16.11.2006 executed between the parties regarding approximately actually comes to 7 Kanals 17 Marlas out of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No. 334 Khtauni No. 720 to 736 measuring 161 Kanals 5 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 424/1min (11-1), 425/1min (5-16), 1234/1 (1-4), 1237/1 (23-1), 1238/1, (28-1), 1241/1/2 (15-16), 1242 min (5-1), 1246/2 min (2-6), 1241/1/1 (1-0), 1242 min (3-0), 1241/2/1 (2-10), 1241/1 (1-0), 424min (2-10), 425/1 min (1-0), 424/1/1 (0-13), 424/1 min (1-7), 425/1 min (0-13), 1246/2 min (6-0), 424/1 min (1-7), 425/1 min (0-13), 1246/2 min (6-0), 1241/2/2 min (2-15), 1241/2/2 min (2-0), 1234/2/1 (1-4), 424/1 min (2-1), 4251/min (2-0), 1234 min (8-0), 1234/1 (1-0), 1234/2 (2-13-1/2), 1234/2 (0-1/2), 1234/2 (3-6), 159/2/2 (4-10), 160/2/2 (8-1), 161/2/2 (2-15) and 423/2 (1-0), situated in the revenue limits of Village Naruana Tehsil and District Bathinda on payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- per killa of 8 Kanals, (in fact the land with the Defendant remains 7 Kanals 17 Marlas after adjusting her other land in ther Khata and value for ther land comes to Rs. 6,86,875/- and after adjusting the Rs. 2,00,000/- paid in cash as earnest money and Rs. 50,000/- paid by the Plaintiff to the Co-Operative Society as loan payable on their payable by the Defendant.

And

Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or creating any encumbrance over the same by creating mortgage with the above said bank or any other person in any manner value of the said for the purpose of jurisdiction Rs. 7,00,000/- value of the said for the purpose of Court fee Rs. 9176/-

This suit has come up for final disposal before me (K.K. Singla Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bathinda) in the presence of Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Rana, counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Rajdeep Goyal counsel for defendant. It is ordered that suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sale dated 16.11.2006 is decreed with costs and defendant is directed to execute and registered the sale deed pertaining to 157/3225 share out of the property detailed in the head note of the plaint within 3 months on depositing the balance sale consideration by plaintiff within two months from today.”

5. The respondents-herein (original defendants) being dissatisfied with the grant of decree of specific performance challenged the same by filing First Appeal in the District Court. The appeal came to be dismissed vide Judgment and order dated 21-4-2015. The operative part of the order passed by the first appellate court reads thus:

“xxx xxx xxx

So, from the above said discussion and findings, there is no merit in this appeal and hence, the same stands dismissed with costs. Lower court record along with copy of this Judgment be returned back. File be consigned to the record room. Decree should be prepared separately.”

6. The defendants thereafter did not deem fi