Specific Performance--Enlargement of Time--Plaintiff failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within time stipulated by Court--Decree becomes unexecutable and Court cannot extend the time for said deposit.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. Petitioner-defendant No.2-judgment debtor is in revision petition against the impugned order, whereby the objections filed by him vis-a-vis the decree dated 24.4.2012 granting specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.5.2007, had been dismissed.

2. It would be in the fitness of things to give brief preface of the matter.

3. Respondent-plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit No.530 of 22.7.2008 seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell aforementioned, which was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.2012, whereby the respondent-plaintiff was given two months' time to deposit the balance sale consideration with a further direction to the petitioner-defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The aforementioned judgment and decree was assailed by the petitioner-defendant vide Civil Appeal No.2352 of 18.5.2012 (i.e. Before the period of two months could expire). The aforementioned appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2.1.2014. The Regular Second Appeal No.2890 of 2014 was preferred before this Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.9.2014. During the pendency of the aforementioned regular appeal, respondent-plaintiff submitted an application (Annexure P-6) dated 8.8.2014 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the balance sale consideration, i.e., Rs. 3,30,000/-. On 30.8.2014, the trial Court passed the order (Annexure P-7) on the execution application along with misc. application, which reads thus:-

“Execution Application no.43 of 2014. Amrik Singh Versus Surinder Kaur Present: Ms. Anita Kaura Adv. for DH.

Report of Execution Clerk seen. Execution be registered in the relevant register under rules. Alongwith the execution application, an application seeking permission to deposit balance sale consideration in the Court also filed. Heard. In view of the averments made in the application, the same be allowed and decree holder is granted permission to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court. Now to come up on 23.09.2014 for further proceedings.

Dated: 30.08.2014 Sd/- (Rupinder Singh) ACJ (SD)/Phagwara”

4. The aforementioned execution application was objected to by the petitioner-judgment debtor that the judgment and decree of the trial Court had become unexecutable for non-deposit of the amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- and the Court could not grant the extension. It is the aforementioned objections which have been dismissed vide impugned order. Hence the present revision petition.

5. Mr. Gourav Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-judgment debtor submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law, for, there was no impediment or bar upon the respondent-plaintiff in not depositing the balance sale consideration, even if the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court was pending. No explanation has come on record. The application for extension of time is bereft of reasons. Except that, it has been submitted that the appeal was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court on 2.1.2014. At the best, the application could have been moved within a period of two months to show the intention of depositing the money. In support of his contention, relied upon the provisions of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short “1963 Act”) to contend that the statutory provisions provide the decree to be unexecutable. Even if the application for rescission of the contract or decree had not been moved, the decree had become unexecutable. In support of his contention, he has taken the aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.R. Yelumalai Versus N.M. Ravi, 2015 (2) Civil Court Cases 680 (SC) to contend that in case the purchaser fails to deposit the amount within the said period or further two months granted by the Court, the Court cannot extend the time, Prem Jeevan Versus K.S. Venkata Raman & Anr., 2017 (2) Civil Court Cases 001 (S.C.) to contend that where the deposit had