IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: January 22, 2026 Date of Pronouncement: February 24, 2026 Uploaded on: February 24, 2026 Paramjit Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Satish Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr.Yashdeep Nain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal and Mr.Ojas Bansal, Advocates for the respondent.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

Challenge in the revision petition is to the order dated

19.11.2014 passed by learned Executing Court, whereby, the objections filed by the respondent-judgment debtor, in the execution petition, were allowed and the execution petition was dismissed.

In pursuance of the notice issued, the respondent- judgment debtor made appearance through counsel.

The background facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, the petitioner, is the original plaintiff-decree holder (hereinafter referred as petitioner only). He instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.01.2002 against the respondent-original defendant- judgment debtor (hereinafter referred as respondent only). The suit was instituted on 14.06.2005 and it came to be decreed on 12.12.2009 In the said decree, the petitioner was directed to pay balance sale consideration to the respondent or to deposit the same in the Court, within a period of two months, from the date of decree, failing which, his suit shall stand dismissed automatically. The respondent had filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree on 20.01.2010 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.08.2012 On 30.08.2012, an application was filed, at the instance of the petitioner before the concerned District Judge, to deposit the balance sale consideration. In view of the order passed by the concerned District Judge, the balance sale consideration amount was deposited by the petitioner before the Court on 31.08.2012. Execution petition was filed by the petitioner on 03.11.2012 and on 05.11.2012, the Regular Second Appeal, came to be dismissed. On 31.05.2013, the review application was dismissed. On 19.11.2014, the impugned order was passed, whereby, the objection petition was allowed and the execution petition was dismissed.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the revision petition in hand.

Counsel for the parties heard.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though, two months’ period was granted by the trial Court to deposit the balance sale consideration, but however, the appeal was filed to challenge the decree and therefore, it being continuation of the litigation, the same came to be dismissed and therein, the time was not mandated to deposit the balance sale consideration, which fact, as such, has not been considered by the Executing Court. It is further submitted that soon after the dismissal of the appeal, the requisite amount was deposited. The decree of the Appellate Court would be considered to be a decree passed by the Court of first instance. Thus, it is contended that by the doctrine of merger, when the Appellate Court had not specified the time limit for the deposit of the balance sale consideration, considering the deposit made, soon after the dismissal of the appeal, the executing Court, could not have allowed the objections and dismiss the execution petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Ramakutty Gupta vs. Avara, 1994 AIR (SC) 1699, wherein, while considering the case, where the judgment debtor had filed the petition in the executing Court to rescind the contract, on the plea that the respondent-plaintiff had committed default in depositing the sale consideration, within the prescribed period by the appellate decree. The judgment debtor had carried the matter in second appeal to the High Court and the respondent-decree holder, deposited the amount, after the time fixed by the Appellate Court, but before the second appeal was dismissed.

In the aforesaid case, the Court relied up