IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.07.2025 ANANT RAM (SINCE DECEASED)

THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES …..PETITIONER Vs.

JAGMAL SINGH (SINCE DECEASED)

THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner.

*******

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present revision pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on filed under Ar(cid:27)cle 227 of the Cons(cid:27)tu(cid:27)on of India has been filed to assail the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Addi(cid:27)onal Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the applica(cid:27)on under Sec(cid:27)on 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 filed pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner-plain(cid:27)ff was dismissed.

2. Civil Suit No. 303-2008 was filed by Jagmal Singh (respondent through his legal representa(cid:16)ves herein) seeking possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.12.2006. The suit was decreed on 31.07.2014 (Annexure P-1), direc(cid:27)ng the defendant–Anant Ram (pe(cid:16)(cid:16)oner through his legal representa(cid:16)ves herein) to execute and register the sale deed within two months.

3. The defendant preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court granted stay on 11.09.2014. However, the appeal was dismissed on 06.04.2018 for non-payment of court fees. A prior revision pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on (CR No. 4349 of 2016) against the order dated 27.05.2016, declining the defendant's indigency applica(cid:27)on under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC, was also dismissed by this Court on 19.02.2018 (Annexure P-2).

4. Post dismissal of the appeal, the decree-holder ini(cid:27)ated execu(cid:27)on proceedings and filed an applica(cid:27)on seeking disclosure of encumbrances on the suit property so it could be transferred free from liabili(cid:27)es.

5. In response, the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oners moved an applica(cid:27)on under Sec(cid:27)on 28 of the Specific Relief Act, contending that the plain(cid:27)ff had failed to deposit the balance sale considera(cid:27)on within two months of the decree, thereby jus(cid:27)fying rescission of the agreement and dismissal of the suit. This applica(cid:27)on was rejected by the trial Court, leading to the present revision.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oners that a decree for specific performance is a preliminary decree and the suit is deemed to remain pending. He submits that under Sec(cid:27)on 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court has discre(cid:27)on to either the extend (cid:27)me or rescind the agreement. Since the decree-holder allegedly failed to deposit the sale considera(cid:27)on within the s(cid:27)pulated period, the trial Court erred in rejec(cid:27)ng the applica(cid:27)on.

7. A@er hearing the submissions and perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the conten(cid:27)on. The trial Court, while dismissing the applica(cid:27)on, rightly observed that the decree dated 31.07.2014 did not direct the plain(cid:27)ff to deposit the balance sale considera(cid:27)on within any fixed (cid:27)me. The only direc(cid:27)on was for the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months. Relying on Nispal Kaur v. Kulwant Singh, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 562 and Tara Singh v. Ravinderpal Singh, 2007(1) PLJ 486, it was correctly held that where the decree does not s(cid:27)pulate (cid:27)me for deposit, the decree-holder cannot be debarred from execu(cid:27)ng the decree merely for not deposi(cid:27)ng the sale considera(cid:27)on along with the execu(cid:27)on applica(cid:27)on.

8. The trial Court further noted that while the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oners claimed to have issued a legal no(cid:27)ce dated 02.08.2018 for execu(cid:27)on of the sale deed on 16.08.2018, the decree-holder, Jagmal Singh, had already expired on 03.06.2018. The no(cid:27)ce was returned unserved with an endorsement of the recipient’s death which a fact not disputed by the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oners.

9. Moreover, it was the pe(cid:27)(cid