Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.
Ved Singh (since deceased) through LRs - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar (since deceased) through LRs and others - Respondents - Respondent
CR No.3231 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate and Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Puneet Jindal Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
Mr. A.P.S.Nain, Advocate for respondents No.6 to 8.
The court established that the decree in question was executable, and the Executing Court validly permitted the deposit of the balance sale consideration in terms of the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 28 - 01.02.2011 - 25.01.2014 - 09.11.2017 - 12.07.2022 - 20.07.2022 - The court allowed the decree holders to deposit the balance sale consideration in terms of the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011. The decree in question was held to be executable, and the Executing Court validly permitted the deposit of the balance sale consideration.
Fact of the Case:
An agreement to sell was entered into between the parties on 23.08.2004. The suit for specific performance was decreed in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant on 01.02.2011. The defendant filed appeals against the judgment, which were dismissed. The decree holders filed an execution application on 25.01.2014 to deposit the balance sale consideration, which remained pending. The judgment debtor's application for rescission of the agreement was dismissed on 04.04.2022. The impugned order dated 12.07.2022 allowed the decree holders to deposit the balance sale consideration, which was done on 20.07.2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decree in question was executable, and the Executing Court validly permitted the deposit of the balance sale consideration in terms of the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011.
Issues: The issue before the court was whether the decree had become in-executable due to the decree holder's failure to deposit the balance sale consideration and whether the decree holder could be permitted to do so belatedly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no delay or failure on the part of the decree holders in seeking execution of the decree. The decree holders had moved the application to deposit the balance sale consideration within three months of the vacation of the stay on the decree. The court also found that the decree holder was prompt in seeking execution of the decree and permission to deposit the balance consideration amount.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, were disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.
This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-6) whereby the Executing Court allowed the respondents/plaintiffs/decree holders’ application (hereinafter referred to as 'decree holders') to deposit the balance sale consideration amount in terms of the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011 (Annexure P-1).
2. The facts of the case in brief are, an agreement to sell was entered into between the parties on 23.08.2004 to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the decree holder after payment of balance sale consideration amounting to Rs.39,46,250/-. Violation of terms of the agreement led to filing of the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement by the plaintiffs/decree holders, which was decreed by the trial Court against the petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as ‘judgment debtor’) vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011. The operative part of the decree dated 01.02.2011 reads as under:
It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.08.2004, is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and defendant No.1 through his LRs is directed to perform his part of contract by executing a sale deed of the suit land in terms of agreement Ex.P-1 in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to the suit land within three months from the date of judgment and get the same registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sonepat, failing which the plaintiff will be at liberty to approach the court of law within three months thereafter, for getting the agreement Ex.P-1 executed in accordance with law. The sale deeds Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 are also set aside being illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Suit is decreed with cost.
3. The judgment debtor filed appeal against the same before the lower appellate Court, which was dismissed on 24.12.2013 affirming the judgment of the trial Court. The interim stay dated 03.03.2011 on the trial Court decree stood vacated with dismissal of the appeal. The Regular Second Appeal (RSA) filed against the judgments and decree before this Court was dismissed on 26.02.2015, and Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11.07.2015.
4. Soon after dismissal of appeal by the lower appellate Court on 24.12.2013, an execution application was filed by the decree holders on 25.01.2014, along with an application dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure P-3) to deposit the balance sale consideration in Court for execution and registration of the sale deed. The same, however, remained pending before the Executing Court, despite dismissal of the aforementioned RSA as well as the SLP.
5. Subsequently, on 09.11.2017 an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was filed by LRs of defendant No.1/judgment debtor for rescission of the agreement to sell dated 23.08.2014on the ground that the decree holders failed to perform their part of the contract and deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period of three months from the date of decree. The application was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 dismissing the judgment debtor’s objections was passed, after noticing dismissal of the application for rescission and the decree holders were allowed time to deposit the balance sale consideration. The case was adjourned for filing proof of deposit of the balance sale consideration and draft of sale deed. Pursuant thereto, the balance sale consideration was deposited on 20.07.2022.
6. Learned senior counsel for the judgment debtor has argued that the decree in question dated 01.02.2011 has become in-executable since the decree holders have failed to perform their part of the contract to deposit balance
