IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:10.02.2026 Kishan Chand (deceased) through L.Rs. ...Petitioner Versus Ramesh Chand ...Respondent CR-972-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision:10.02.2026 Kishan Chand (deceased) through L.Rs. ...Petitioner Versus Ramesh Chand and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate and Mr. Gopal Singh Nehal, Advocate for petitioner in both cases.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Petitioner-defendant No.1 has preferred Civil Revision No. 983 of 2026 challenging impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal against dismissal of his application under Section 28(1) of Specific Relief Act. Civil Revision No.972 of 2026 has also been filed by petitioner challenging impugned order dated 27.11.2025, whereby application filed by respondent-decree holder for deposit of balance sale consideration and extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration amount, was allowed

2. Respondent-plaintiff Ramesh Chand had preferred a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 06.01.2006, wherein it was asserted that suit land was agreed to be purchased by petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- against which earnest money of Rs.4,23,000/- was duly paid at the time of execution of agreement to sell. The last date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 06.01.2007. It was the case of respondent-plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, however, petitioner-defendant No.1, during the pendency of suit, had executed sale deed dated 13.06.2006 regarding 08 kanals in favour of defendant No.2, who is his son-in-law, in order to defeat right of respondent-plaintiff. The said suit for specific performance was partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2013 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal in favour of respondent- plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff was held entitled to recover amount of earnest money of Rs.4,23,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum.

3. Aggrieved by said grant of partial relief, respondent-plaintiff had further filed first appeal, which was decided by judgment and decree dated 09.04.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Palwal, wherein cross objections were also preferred by petitioner-defendant No.1-judgment debtor. The appeal preferred by respondent-plaintiff was allowed, whereas, cross objections preferred by petitioner-judgment debtor were dismissed. The operative part of judgment and decree dated 09.04.2015 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference as the dispute has arisen on account of interpretation of same:-

“The appeal filed by the appellant stands accepted. Consequently, suit of appellant/plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed with costs. A decree for specific performance is passeed in favour of appellant/plaintiff and against the respondent/defendants directing the respondent/defendant no.1 to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of appellant/plaintiff on receipt balance sale consideration of Rs.6,27,000/- within a period of 60 days failing which the plaintiff can get the same executed and registered through the process of the Court. Accordingly, the sale deed dated 13.06.2006 executed by respondent/defendant no.1 in favour of respondent/defendant No.2 is set aside and the appeal/cross- objections filed by respondents/defendant no.1 stands dismissed.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.”

4. Admittedly, judgment and decree dated 09.04.2015 had attained finality. Thereafter, execution petition was preferred by respondent-plaintiff. Along with execution petition, application for deposit of balance sale consideration of Rs.6,27,000/- was also moved. Subsequently, another application was moved by respondent-applicant-decree holder seeking permission and extension of time to deposit balance sale consideration. It is worth noticing that in his application for extensi