JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J.

1. Both the revision petitions have been instituted by the petitioners against the order dated 03.01.2026 vide which the applications under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act’) moved by them/ JD No.1(i) and JD No.1(ii) have been dismissed.

2. It is submitted by petitioner-Charanbir Singh in the application under Section 28 of the Act that the decree holders/ respondents have filed the present execution petition for execution of judgment and decree dated 16.08.2000 passed by the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh. As per Section 28 of the Act, the vendor is empowered to claim recession of contract on account of default in payment of the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period. It is submitted that the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2000 and defendants being the legal representatives of deceased – Jagjit Singh Mann were directed to execute and get registered the sale deed within a period of two months from the date of passing of decree on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs. It is further submitted that after passing of the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2000, defendants- JDs filed appeal before First Appellate Court which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.09.2003. Thereafter, a Regular Second Appeal No.5867 of 2003 was preferred before the High Court and the High Court stayed the execution of judgment and decree and finally the Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 26.10.2018. It is further alleged that as per decree passed by the trial Court, the decree holders were required to deposit balance sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs within two months from the date of decree but the decree holders neither approached the JDs nor they deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs in the Court. The execution of sale deed by JDs in favour of decree holders was subject to receipt of balance sale consideration which was never deposited by the DHs till 03.01.2019 when the draft of the balance sale consideration was deposited before the executing court by the decree holders. The decree holders have also not filed any application for extension of time before the recession of the contract/ agreement. It is further submitted that payment of balance sale consideration was a condition precedent in the decree for specific performance and since decree holders have not deposited the balance sale consideration as per directions of the Court, the contract in question is liable to be rescinded as per Section 28 of the Act.

3. Decree holders/ respondents filed reply to the application submitting that the powers and scope of this Court in execution proceedings are circumscribed to execute the decree as a whole. The decree for specific performance of the agreement has been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and all the objections qua the specific performance of the agreement to sell have been rejected upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The application in hand is not maintainable and the same has been filed only to delay the execution of the decree. It is further submitted that as per law, the judgments passed by the trial Court, learned First Appellate Court and the High Court stand merged in terms of doctrine of 'merger’ and as such, decree is to be considered for the purpose of execution ipso facto as to be the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 26.10.2018. The judgment debtors were fully aware of the execution application from the every beginning but they avoided to receive the summons. It is further submitted that judgment debtors have no right to claim recession of the agreement to sell dated 31.05.1982 either in terms of Section 28 of the Act or any other law and the present application is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The High Court had decided RSA No.5867 of 2003 on 26.10.2018 and the execution petition along with demand dr