The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing sufficient grounds for rescission of an agreement to sell under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and the trial court's discretion in condoning delay in depositing the balance sale consideration.

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/JD for setting aside the order dated 31.1.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act 1963 (in short ‘the Act’) to rescind the agreement to sell (contract) dated 17.1.2008, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Surjit Singh filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.1.2008, which was executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent Surjit Singh with regard to suit property for valuable consideration and at the time of execution of the said agreement to sell the petitioner received sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance money from the respondent and it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed by 18.12.2008 on payment of balance sale consideration by the respondent to the petitioner. In the plaint it was also pleaded that the respondent always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and even on the date fixed i.e. 18.12.2008, he appeared before Sub-Registrar Ludhiana for execution and registration of the sale deed but the petitioner did not turn up to perform his part of the contract. Consequently suit for specific performance was filed. The petitioner failed to appear in the trial Court despite his due service and consequently he was proceeded against ex-parte and finally the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent and ex-parte decree dated 12.3.2011 was passed in favour of the respondent regarding specific performance of agreement to sell and against the petitioner. The respondent was directed to deposit the remaining balance amount in the Court within 3 months of the passing of the ex-parte decree. The balance sale consideration was deposited by the respondent on 8.8.2011 after seeking necessary permission from the Court concerned. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 17.5.2013 under Section 28 of the Act seeking cancellation of the agreement to sell on the ground that the respondent failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within stipulated period of 3 months as provided in exparte decree dated 12.3.2011.

3. The said application was contested by the respondent/decree holder and finally the same was dismissed by the Court concerned vide impugned order dated 31.1.2020.

4. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.

6. The counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has inter alia contended that respondent has failed to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has been further contended that the trial Court gave 3 months’ time to the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration from the date of passing of ex-parte decree dated 12.3.2011. That however, the respondent failed to comply with the said direction within stipulated period of 3 months. It is further contended that after the expiry of aforesaid period of 3 months, respondent filed an application on 6.8.2011 seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration, at the back of the petitioner and the same was allowed by the learned trial Court without following the proper procedure and permission was granted to the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration, in an illegal manner without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. That in the given circumstances as the respondent failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period of 3 months, the agreement to sell stands cancelled automatically. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the petitioner came to know about the illegal permission being granted by the Court concerned to deposit the balance sale consideration, he immediately filed application under Section 28 of the A