IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-5256-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 22.08.2025 Kuldeep Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner VERSUS Randeep Rana ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Gurfateh Singh Mann, Advocate and Ms. Simar Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 - Caveator -.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor Kuldeep Kumar Sharma, assailing the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby his application for rescission of contract under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was dismissed, while the application of the decree holder/respondent for extension of time to deposit balance sale consideration was allowed.

Chronology of Events:

2. On 14.03.2017, the trial Court decreed a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/plaintiff, holding him entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.02.2011on payment of balance sale consideration calculated at ₹46,500/- per square yard in respect of the plot measuring 34 feet x 168 feet (about 550 sq. yards) as existing on the spot after demarcation, within a period of three months from the date of the decree. The defendant/judgment-debtor was directed to get executed the requisite sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration, failing which the plaintiff/decree holder shall be entitled to get the same executed through Court of law.

3. On 15.04.2017, the judgment-debtor filed appeal, and on 17.04.2017, execution of the decree was stayed by the first Appellate Court. The appeal remained pending till its dismissal on 01.09.2021. Thus, the decree remained under stay from 17.04.2017 till 01.09.2021. Excluding this period, the decree holder was required to comply with the balance period of one month and 28 days remaining out of the original three months. Accordingly, the period for compliance was to expire on 29.10.2021.

4. In the meantime, execution petition was filed. Notice was issued to the judgment-debtor, who was proceeded against ex parte on 11.10.2021. On 26.11.2021, the decree holder was permitted to deposit the balance sale consideration on his own responsibility. On 10.01.2022, report of the Local Commissioner was received. On 17.01.2022, JUDGMENT-DEBTOR appeared and decree holder placed on record receipt of deposit of ₹3,25,000/-. On 02.02.2022, judgment-debtor moved application for rescission of contract as also for setting aside the order dated 11.10.2021, whereby he was proceeded ex parte and thereafter ex parte order was set aside.

5. On 07.03.2022, judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC for appointment of fresh Local Commissioner. The same was allowed and Local Commissioner was appointed on 13.05.2022. A second application for appointment of fresh Local Commissioner was, however, dismissed on 20.09.2022. Thereafter, judgment-debtor moved application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for rescission of contract dated 28.02.2011. On 05.11.2022, decree holder filed reply along with an application under Section 28 for extension of time to deposit balance sale consideration. On 16.11.2022, decree holder placed on record voucher of payment. Reply thereto was filed by judgment-debtor on 21.11.2022. In the meanwhile, this Court vide order dated 17.11.2022 appointed a fresh Local Commissioner for demarcation, who submitted report on 20.12.2022.

6. The decree holder had deposited an amount of ₹1,71,34,000/- on calculation of area measuring 476 sq. yards instead of 550 sq. yards as originally mentioned. Judgment-debtor objected that such deposit was not in accordance with the decree and was beyond the stipulated time. He asserted that decree holder intentionally delayed the process by raising unnecessary dispute about demarcation, thereby depositing lesser amount and that too after expiry of the stipulated period.

7. The Executing Court, however,