The court emphasized the importance of correctly interpreting decrees, the discretion of the court in allowing extensions of time, and the application of equitable principles in matters arising from a decree for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) - In the present civil revision petition, the challenge is to the order dated 06.08.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court by which, the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Section 148 of CPC for the extension of time for depositing the amount as the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Tarn Taran, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs argues that the late husband of petitioner no. 1, namely, Gurbhej Singh had filed a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18.12.2006 for a land measuring 3 kanals 4 marlas. During the pendency of the said suit, Gurbhej Singh died and the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Gurbhej Singh, were brought on record. The competent court of law allowed the said suit seeking specific performance on 20.12.2012 and the relevant part of the said order is reproduced as under :

'26. In view of my findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question succeeds and the same is hereby decreed with costs and the defendants no. 1 and 2 are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on payment of balance sale consideration out of which mortgaged amount of ft,00,000/-shall be paid to the defendant no. 5 out of which Rs. 50,000/-shall be paid by the plaintiff and remaining half shall be paid by defendants no. 1 & 2, as per agreement to sell dated 18.12.2006 within a period of two months from today, failing which, the plaintiff can get the sale deed executed by due process of law. Further the defendants no. 1 and 2 are restrained from alienating the suit property in favour of any other person except the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared. The file be consigned to the record room."

3. A bare perusal of the above would show that the sale consideration for the property in question had already been paid by the deceased but as the property was under mortgage with defendant no. 5 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the trial court while passing the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) directed that Rs. 50,000/- will be paid by the petitioners-plaintiffs and remaining Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by respondents-defendants no. 1 and 2 out of the said consideration to release the land from mortgage, which money was to go to defendant no. 5, for which, two months' time was granted.

4. As a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which was to be paid to defendant no. 5 by petitioners-plaintiffs for release of the land from mortgage, was not deposited by the petitioners-plaintiffs within a period of two months, an application was filed under Section 148 of CPC seeking extension of time on the ground that the money could not be deposited due to the unavoidable circumstances. The said application for extension of time was ultimately dismissed by the trial court while passing the order dated 06.08.2018 (Annexure P-3), which order is under challenge in the present civil revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs argues that in the present case, the extension of time has been declined by the trial court on the ground that there was a specific direction to deposit the 'balance sale consideration', whereas the sale consideration had already been given at the time of the agreement itself and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was to be deposited by the petitioners-plaintiffs in order to redeem the land from mortgage, which amount was to be paid to defendant no. 5 within two months hence, the application filed by the petitioners has been declined by the Executing Court by taking into consideration the facts, which are non-existing. Hence, the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 (Annexure P-3) is liable to be set-aside and the time of depositing the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in order to redeem the land from mortgage to be paid to defendant no. 5 be extended.

6. Learned counsel for respo