JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral) :

The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant/judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant-JD) assailing the order dated 07.09.2015 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mewat vide which the objections raised by the defendant-JD to the execution proceedings were rejected.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual matrix of the instant bitter and long litigation is that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 19.10.2005 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff/Decree Holder (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff-DH'). The same was decreed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-1). A direction was issued to the defendant-JD to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance sale consideration within a period of three months. The said judgment and decree was assailed in first appeal by the defendant-JD and an interim order was passed by the First Appellate Court restraining both the parties from alienating the suit property on 17.12.2012. However, even thereafter, an execution petition was filed by the plaintiff-DH (Annexure P-4) on 04.03.2013. An application for depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,92,410/- (Annexure P-5) was moved on 05.03.2013. The first appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mewat. A regular second appeal was preferred by the defendant-JD in which an order of status quo as regards possession was passed. Thereafter, the defendant-JD filed objections in the execution petition on 14.07.2015 (Annexure P-7) stating that the execution proceedings were time barred as the time line provided in the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) had not been followed. The said objections were dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 07.09.2015 (Annexure P-8) leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable since the initial time line provided by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) was not complied with by the plaintiff-DH and, therefore, in terms of the provisions of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the 1963 Act'), the contract stood rescinded. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Jeevan versus K.S.Venkata Raman and Another 2017 AIR (Supreme Court) 623 and the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mangai Singh versus Amrik Singh 2018 (4) RC.R (Civil) 98 (Law Finder Doc Id # 1137970).

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. He submits that though a period of three months had been granted by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012, first appeal was filed by the defendant-FD on 22.11.2012 and an interim order was passed on 17.12.2012 i.e. much prior to the expiry of three months. He submits that despite the said fact, the plaintiff-DH filed an execution petition on 04.03.2013 and also filed an application to deposit the balance sale consideration on 05.03.2013. However, the execution petition was dismissed in default on 01.08.2014 (Annexure P-6) since the appeal was still pending. He submits that the first appeal was also dismissed on 11.11.2014 and immediately thereafter another execution petition was filed despite the fact that a status quo order had been passed by the High Court. He submits that the plaintiff-DH had always been ready and willing to deposit sale consideration but it was only on account of the interim order passed by the