IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 Kulwinder Singh (Deceased) Through LR ....Petitioner Versus Inderjit Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.

Present: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated

21.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Jalandhar vide which the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant/JD (Kulwinder Singh through his LR) under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) for rescinding the agreement to sell dated 10.02.2000 and to declare the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2006 as unexecutable was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.03.2000 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder (Inderjit Singh). The same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.06.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. Notably, this was an ex parte judgment and decree. It has been averred in the revision petition that after passing of the said ex parte judgment and decree, no steps were taken by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder to deposit the money either in the treasury or in Court within the time period prescribed i.e. three months. No execution petition was filed after the lapse of three months though subsequently one execution petition was filed, but, was dismissed in default.

3. It has also been averred that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 was moved by the petitioner/defendant/JD for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.06.2006 which was dismissed on 30.08.2011. An appeal was preferred against the said order but the same was also dismissed on 14.08.2013 after which an execution petition was filed by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder on 04.04.2016. An application under Section 28 of the Act was filed by the petitioner/defendant/JD claiming that neither after the passing of the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2006 nor after the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner/defendant/JD on 14.08.2013, any steps were taken by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder to deposit the amount for the execution of the sale deed nor any application was moved for extension of time. This application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder stating that they had made efforts to pay the amount to the legal heirs of the petitioner/defendant/JD but they had refused.

4. The application was dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 21.04.2018 (Annexure P-1), leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant/JD has strenuously urged that the impugned order is not sustainable. Reference has been made to the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2006 (Annexure P-2). He submits that even the application under Order 9 Rule 13 was dismissed on 30.08.2011 and the appeal was dismissed on 14.08.2013 after which the execution petition was filed on 04.04.2016. Learned counsel submits that even initially when the suit was decreed, no amount was deposited within a period of three months as had been directed by the trial Court nor any application was moved for extension of time. He further submits that even after the dismissal of the appeal on 14.08.2013, the execution petition was not filed almost for a period of two years and the same only came to be filed on 04.04.2016 and even during this time, no amount was deposited nor any application was moved for extension of time. He submits that under the circumstances, there was no option with the Court but to accept the application under Section 28 of the Act moved by the petitioner/defendant/JD but the same w