JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. Invoking the extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks judicial correction of grave jurisdictional errors and material irregularities committed by the learned Court below. The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, whereby the respondent has been permitted to deposit the balance sale consideration long after the expiry of the period mandated under the decree, and despite the respondent not having filed any application seeking extension of time for such deposit. The petitioner further assails the consequential order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby the learned Court has dismissed the petitioner’s application for rescission of the alleged unregistered sale deed dated 11.02.2020 and for recalling the order dated 20.03.2025, thereby perpetuating an illegality and defeating the settled principles governing specific performance and time-bound deposit of sale consideration.

2. A brief conspectus of the facts reveals that respondent–Veer Singh instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.2024. The Trial Court directed that the sale deed be executed and registered within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, and in the event of non-execution by respondents No. 2 and 3, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was held entitled to have the sale deed executed and registered through the process of the Court and to secure actual physical possession during the execution proceedings. It was further observed that, should the deposit of the balance sale consideration be necessitated for execution of the decree, the same was required to be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

3. A cardinal principle governing execution proceedings is that the learned Executing Court is bound by the terms of the decree and cannot travel beyond, dilute, or rewrite its mandatory conditions. In the present matter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, and during its pendency, the respondent/decree-holder initiated execution proceedings. The learned Executing Court, however, erroneously permitted the decree-holder to deposit the balance sale consideration vide order dated 20.03.2025, despite the decree-holder neither depositing the said amount within the period expressly stipulated in the decree nor moving any application seeking extension of time for such deposit. The petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking rescission of the unregistered sale deed dated 11.02.2020 allegedly executed by JD Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent No. 1/decree- holder, as well as recalling of the order dated 20.03.2025 and rejection of the decree-holder’s belated prayer for deposit of the balance consideration. The said application was dismissed, and both impugned orders are assailed as being manifestly erroneous, contrary to the record, passed in disregard of the binding terms of the decree, and in breach of foundational principles of natural justice and the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. It is well settled that judicial review of interlocutory orders must be anchored in a careful appraisal of the record and a reasoned evaluation of the submissions advanced. Having considered the matter in that doctrinal backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have meticulously examined the paper-book.

5. The jurisprudential contours governing execution of decrees for specific performance stand firmly shaped by authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In aid of this settled doctrinal framework, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Cou