Absolving unjust enrichment, a party awarded compensation must not obstruct possession; equitable relief principles demand compliance with execution orders.

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Some litigants, it seems, cannot take yes for an answer. After this Court on 1st April, 2025 set aside the decree but moulded equitable relief by directing payment of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores), a sum 800 (eight hundred) times the Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) paid as earnest money in 1989, the appellant refused the tender, obstructed execution, and has returned to this Court in an effort to delay the inevitable. This appeal is a cautionary tale about how the pursuit of a windfall can turn the process of law against those who seek to exploit it, in order to retain possession while spurning an extraordinary monetary award. The appellant has shot himself in the foot and in the same breath dug his own grave. Equity will not allow unjust enrichment. The process of execution exists to give effect to judgments and not to underwrite windfalls. A party that has received such compensation must yield possession.

3. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 5810 of 2025, titled ‘Prem Aggarwal through her GPA Holder vs. Mohan Singh and others’, whereby the said revision assailing the correctness of the order dated 07.08.2025 as well as order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh (for short, “Executing Court”) directing for issue of warrant of possession and rejecting the objections/application of the appellant, was dismissed.

4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are as follows. Appellant hereinafter is referred to as the plaintiff and the respondents as defendants for the initial part of the order.

i) An agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 was executed by the defendants whereby they agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 14,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. At the time of execution of the agreement to sell, an advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid as earnest money. The suit property consisted of two floors. On the first floor there were two tenants. The ground floor was vacant. Its possession was given to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement. In February 1990, the plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 44 of 1990 for a simple relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating or dispossessing them from the suit property. The plaintiff apprehended that the defendants intended to resell the suit property as an advertisement had been issued by them on 07.01.1990 in daily newspaper ‘The Tribune’. The said suit for permanent injunction was dismissed as withdrawn by the Trial Court on 15.06.1990 and attained finality.

ii) The plaintiff thereafter instituted another suit bearing Civil Suit No. 55 of 1990 in June 1990 seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2009. Against the said order, the first appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed on 19.09.2013. The second appeal before the High Court was also dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 13.05.2022. A review petition by the defendants also received the same fate and was dismissed on 19.08.2022. High Court although dealt with the issue of Order II rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [For short, “CPC”] but fell in error as it ignored the fact that the suit for injunction and the suit for specific performance were based on the same cause of action, i.e., the advertisement for sale published on 07.01.1990 in