IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:17.02.2026 Sukhdev Singh …..Pe00oner Vs.

Charanjit Singh .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate, Mr. Sarvesh Ra(cid:24)an, Advocate and Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner–decree holder has invoked the revisional jurisdic(cid:27)on of this Court assailing order dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Addi(cid:27)onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon in Execu(cid:27)on Case No.1/24, whereby his applica(cid:27)on under Sec(cid:27)on 151 CPC seeking permission to deposit the balance sale considera(cid:27)on, a6er deduc(cid:27)ng an amount of ₹15,00,000/- along with interest allegedly secured by mortgage, has been dismissed, and the execu(cid:27)on pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on has been held to be not maintainable.

2. The factual backdrop is not in dispute. The pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner had ins(cid:27)tuted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.02.2005. The suit was decreed on 29.11.2012 (Annexure P-2). The opera(cid:27)ve part of the decree directed the plain(cid:27)ff to pay the balance sale considera(cid:27)on within two months from the date of judgment and decree and, upon such payment, the defendant was required to execute and register the sale deed. In the event of failure of the defendant, the plain(cid:27)ff was en(cid:27)tled to seek execu(cid:27)on through process of Court.

3. The decree was challenged by the defendant before the first Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal on 07.12.2013. The Regular Second Appeal preferred therea6er was dismissed by this Court on 10.05.2016. Thus, the decree dated 29.11.2012 a(cid:24)ained finality on

10.05.2016.

4. It is, however, an admi(cid:24)ed posi(cid:27)on that the decree holder did not deposit the balance sale considera(cid:27)on within the s(cid:27)pulated period of two months from the date of decree, i.e. by 29.11.2012. It is equally undisputed that no stay of opera(cid:27)on of the decree was granted during pendency of the appeal, or the Regular Second Appeal. Even a6er dismissal of the RSA on 10.05.2016, the decree holder did not deposit the balance considera(cid:27)on within a reasonable (cid:27)me. The execu(cid:27)on pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on was filed only on 20.12.2023, nearly eight years a6er the decree had a(cid:24)ained finality, accompanied by an applica(cid:27)on seeking permission to deposit the amount at that stage.

5. The learned Execu(cid:27)ng Court, a6er considering the rival submissions, dismissed the applica(cid:27)on and held the execu(cid:27)on to be not maintainable. The reasoning recorded by the Execu(cid:27)ng Court reflects that the decree for specific performance was condi(cid:27)onal in nature and compliance with the condi(cid:27)on of deposit of balance sale considera(cid:27)on within the prescribed period was a condi(cid:27)on precedent for enforcement. It was further no(cid:27)ced that no applica(cid:27)on under Sec(cid:27)on 148 CPC or Sec(cid:27)on 151 CPC seeking extension of (cid:27)me was moved within a reasonable period. The Court also relied upon the se(cid:24)led principle that specific performance being an equitable relief, the decree holder must demonstrate readiness and willingness even post decree.

6. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner has contended that the judgment debtor had mortgaged the property by raising a loan of ₹15,00,000/- from Punjab and Sind Bank and had also alienated a part of the land on 20.07.2020 in favour of one Manpreet Singh, and therefore he cannot be permi(cid:24)ed to take advantage of his own wrong.

7. The conten(cid:27)on does not merit acceptance.

8. A decree for specific performance operates on the principle of mutual and reciprocal obliga(cid:27)ons. When the decree expressly directs the plain(cid:27)ff to deposit the balance sale considera(cid:27)on within a specified pe