1

Civil Revision No. 4218 of 2023

2023:PHHC: 096740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No. 4218 of 2023(O&M)

Date of Decision: 28.07.2023

Jorawar (since deceased) through his LRs & Ors.

…Petitioners

Versus

Mohinder Singh (since deceased) through his LRs &Ors.

…Respondents

CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

Present:- Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate

For the petitioners.

***

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

1.

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/

JDs against the order dated 25.05.2023 (Annexure P-9) by the Court of

Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Bhiwani in an execution application No.

173 of 2018 titled Mahender & Ors. Vs. Jorawar & Ors., whereby an

application filed by the petitioners for framing of issues with regard to

objections raised by the petitioners, has been dismissed.

2.

The counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the

aforesaid application has been declined by the Executing Court without

appreciating the fact that the objections filed by the JD are having merit. It is

further submitted that the decree holder failed to deposit the balance sale

consideration within the stipulated period and on this sole ground the

execution application deserves to be dismissed. It is further contended that

issue also requires to be framed with regard to readiness and willingness of

the respondents to perform their part of the contract and also regarding

fabrication of agreement to sell in question. That the respondents are having

no right to challenge decree dated 19.10.1981 passed in Civil Suit No. 455

JITEN SHARMA

2023.08.01 10:20

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2

Civil Revision No. 4218 of 2023

2023:PHHC: 096740

of 1981. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that all these issues

require proper adjudication after recording of evidence and thus, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

petitioners.

4.

Admittedly, the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of

agreement to sell dated 05.10.1981 as per which the defendants agreed to

sell their land measuring 173 kanals 04 marlas to the plaintiff for

consideration of Rs.3,38,450/- and received Rs.1,08,450/- as earnest money

and the sale deed was to be executed and registered on 15.06.1982. The said

suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court but the appeal was allowed and

the suit was decreed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bhiwani.

Regular second appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by this

Court vide judgment dated 02.05.2018 and the SLP filed by the petitioners

was also dismissed on 06.05.2022. Even the review application filed by the

petitioners was also dismissed. The issues with regard to readiness and

willingness of the proposed vendee to perform his part of the contract is

already dealt with upto Hon’ble Supreme Court. Likewise, issues with

regard to genuineness of the agreement to sell dated 05.10.1981 and the

validity of decree dated19.10.1981 were also taken care of by the First

Appellate Court upto Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned Executing Court

has rightly observed that the issue with regard to deposit of balance sale

consideration is a matter of record. Further, the Executing Court while

dealing with delay, if any, in deposit of the balance sale consideration, is to

take into consideration the fact that the matter was finally decided by the

Hon’ble Apex Court on 06.05.2022 and the date i.e. 15.07.2022 on which

JITEN SHARMA

2023.08.01 10:20

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3

Civil Revision No. 4218 of 2023

2023:PHHC: 096740

review application was dismissed and further to consider the provisions of

Section 28 of Specific Relief Act and Section 148 CPC.

5.

From the above discussion