The obligation under a decree for specific performance primarily lies with the judgment-debtor to execute the deed, while the decree-holder's readiness must be established, affirming the non-applicability of rescission under Section 28.

JUDGMENT :

RITU TAGORE, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of above captioned revision-petitions arising out of the same Execution Petition No. 61 of 2022 titled as Rattan Singh vs. Mahender Singh and Others .

2. Both captioned revision-petitions are directed against the order dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon, District Jind, wherein objection applications (Annexure P-5) filed by Trilok Singh, Gagandeep and Mandeep S/o Trilok Singh and petition under Section 28 of The SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 1963, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) filed by Mahender Singh, have been dismissed and further directed the decree-holder (present respondent) to pay balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,11,875/- within two months of the order, excluding the cost of the suit for execution of the sale deed.

3. Both the parties have agreed and consented to decide the above revision- petitions together, involving similar questions of law.

4. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication are as under:

Mahender Singh through his LRs and others are the petitioners in above revision-petitions. Respondent, Rattan Singh, filed a Civil Suit No.28 dated 29.01.2004, titled Rattan Singh vs. Mahender Singh and Others for possession against petitioners, Mahender Singh (since deceased) and others. The suit, after contest, was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure P-1). The learned trial Court passed the decree in the following terms, as extracted below:-

“As a sequel of above issue-wise findings, suit of the plaintiff for possession succeeds and same is hereby decreed with costs. Defendant No. 1 is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff within the three months of the date of order. Plaintiff has also the right to take the possession of the suit property after execution of the sale deed. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.”

5. The petitioner, Mahender Singh (through LRs) and his grand children, through their guardian mother, preferred an appeal, titled Mahender Singh (through LRs) and others Vs Rattan Singh, against judgment and decree dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure P-1). On 19.04.2011 (as pleaded in the paper-book), the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was stayed till further orders. Ultimately, the First Appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.04.2012 (Annexure P-2), which reads as under:

“In view of above discussion, there is no merit in appeal and same is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. Trial Court record along with copy of this judgment be sent to Court concerned and appeal file be consigned to record room.”

6. Regular Second Appeal No. 3072-2012, preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed on 25.05.2022 (Annexure P-3). The operative part of the judgment passed by this Court, reads as under:-

“As a sequel to the above, the instant appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. The judgments & decrees passed by both the Courts below are affirmed.”

7. During the pendency of RSA, the execution of the decree remained stayed. After finality of the judgment and decree, respondent-Rattan Singh, filed an execution petition before the learned Execution Court. The petitioners filed applications raising several objections as to the non-maintainability of the execution-petition (as detailed therein) and an application for rescission of contract under Section 28 of the Act by pleading that since decree-holder Rattan Singh (respondent in the petitions) did not deposit the amount within three months from the