Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Karnail Singh – Appellant
Versus
Randhir Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Aggarwal, J.
The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , assails order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kaithal, vide which order dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kaithal was set aside, thereby dismissing the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the '1963 Act') and the application/objection dated 13.12.2018 for dismissal of the execution petition filed by the petitioner-defendant (judgment debtor) and restoring the execution petition.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts emerging from the revision petition, are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 04.02.2008 was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff (Randhir Singh) (hereinafter referred to the as the 'plaintiff') against the petitioner-defendant (Karnail Singh) (hereinafter referred to the as the 'defendant'). The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kaithal. The defendant was called upon t
The court emphasized the need for adherence to justice over technical procedural barriers, especially in execution petitions under the Specific Relief Act.
Rescission of contract – Application seeking rescission of contract or extension of time, under Section 28 (1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 must be decided as application in original suit wherein dec....
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-applicab....
The court retains jurisdiction to extend time for performance of a decree, but such extensions must be justified and considered alongside applications for rescission to ensure fairness.
The court emphasized that a petitioner must act with diligence and clean hands when invoking Article 227, especially when challenging an ex-parte decree after an unreasonable delay.
Point of Law : Provisions of section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in light of the provisions of Order XX Rule, 12A of the CPC, and it was held that the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12A mand....
(1) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Non-payment of balance sale consideration within time period fixed by Trial Court does not amount to abandonment of contract and consequent res....
A party seeking specific performance must have clean hands; failure to disclose subsequent agreements does not negate execution of prior decrees, provided timelines for compliance are met.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
