The court emphasized the need for adherence to justice over technical procedural barriers, especially in execution petitions under the Specific Relief Act.

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 to get the sale deed executed within a period of two months from the passing of the said judgment and decree, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to get the same executed through the process of the Court.

2.1 An appeal was preferred by the defendant against the said decision, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kaithal and the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2014 passed by the trial Court was upheld but no time was fixed for execution of the sale deed.

2.2 An application under Section 28 of the 1963 Act was instituted by the defendant on 09.12.2016 (Annexure P-4) wherein, a prayer was made that the plaintiff-decree-holder be directed to pay the balance sale consideration so that the sale deed could be executed and in case of his failing to do so, the agreement to sell dated 04.02.2008 be rescinded.

2.3 Reply (Annexure P-5) was submitted to the said application, stating that the said application was a counter blast to the execution petition preferred by the plaintiff-decree-holder which was pending for 07.04.2018. However, it was averred that the plaintiff-decree holder was having the balance sale consideration ready and was ready to deposit the same as per the order to be passed by the Court.

2.4 It transpires that an execution petition had also been filed by the plaintiff on 19.04.2017.

3. Vide order dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure P-6), the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kaithal dismissed the execution petition and allowed the application filed by the defendant under Section 28 of the 1963 Act and rescinded the agreement to sell.

3.2 An appeal (Annexure P-7) was preferred against the said decision by the plaintiff, which was allowed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kaithal vide order dated 30.09.2022, leading to filing of the instant revision petition by the defendant.

4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

4.1 Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel representing the defendant strenuously urged that no appeal was maintainable against the order dated 08.07.2019 and, therefore, the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kaithal is a nullity in the eyes of law. He submitted that under the circumstances, the said order deserves to be set aside.

4.2 On merits, learned counsel submitted that despite the decree having been passed in favour of the plaintiff on 11.08.