Chattisgarh High Court

Pritam Lal Yadav vs Qiyamuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2025

                                                            1


NIRMALA
RAO




                                                                                                        NAFR

                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                             WP227 No. 371 of 2023

                                     Judgment Reserved on 01.09.2025
                                    Judgment delivered on 04.09.2025


          1 - Pritam Lal Yadav S/o Late Nandlal Yadav, Aged About 68 Years R/o Village
          Dumardih, Post Patora Main Road, Patan, Pulia Road, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg,
          Chhattisgarh
                                                                                      ... Petitioner(s)


                                                         versus


          1 - Qiyamuddin Ahmed S/o Mohammad Alim, Aged About 43 Years R/o Risali,
          Bhilai, Tahsil And, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                       ... Respondent(s)
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondent : Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

1. The petitioner/ judgment-debtor has filed this petition assailing the

order dated 6.3.2023, whereby the application moved by the

petitioner under Section 47 of CPC was rejected, and he was directed

to accept the consideration amount and execute the sale-deed after

demarcation.

2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent/ decree-holder

filed a suit for specific performance of contract and perpetual

injunction against the petitioner/ judgment-debtor. The civil suit was

registered as Civil No. 32A of 2016. It was pleaded in the plaint that

the petitioner entered into a sale agreement on 7.6.2013 to sell

Survey No.999, admeasuring 57.5 decimals, for a total consideration

of Rs.70,00,000/-, in the presence of two witnesses. An advance

payment of Rs.15,00,000/- was made at the time of agreement. The

petitioner had promised to execute registered sale-deed by

30.7.2014. However, as the petitioner failed to execute the sale-

deed, the respondent filed a civil suit, which was decreed by the

learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2019 and

held as under:

"1. वादी का वाद स्वीकार किया जाता है।

2. प्रतिवादी शेष विकय प्रतिफल 5500000/- रू० दो माह के भीतर वादी से

प्राप्त कर वादग्रस्त भूमि खसरा नंबर 999 रकबा 576 डिसमिल का पंजीकृ त

बैनामा वादी के पक्ष में निष्पादित करेगा।

3. वादी द्वारा शेष विकय प्रतिफल 5500000/- रूपये दो माह के भीतर

प्रतिवादी को निविदत्त करने में विफल रहने की स्थिति में संविदा के विशिष्ट

अनुपालन का अनुतोष समाप्त माना जायेगा।

4. वादी द्वारा प्रतिफल की शेष राशि दो माह के भीतर निविदत्त करने के

पश्चात भी वादी द्वारा पंजीकृ त बैनामा नहीं किये जाने की दशा में वादी

न्यायालय के माध्यम से पंजीकृ त बैनामा निष्पादित करा पाने का अधिकारी

होगा।

5. उभयपक्षकार अपना अपना वाद व्यय वहन करेंगे।

6. अधिवक्ता शुल्क प्रमाणित होने पर अथवा सूची अनुसार जो भी कम हो

देय होगा।"

3. Learned trial Court directed the respondent/ decree-holder to make

payment of balance consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- within a period of

two months, and the petitioner was directed to execute the sale-deed.

It was further observed that if the respondent fails to pay the balance

consideration within the stipulated period, the decree for specific

performance will lose its efficacy.

4. The respondent thereafter filed Execution Case No.22 of 2020, in

which the petitioner filed objection under Section 47 of CPC, inter

alia, on the ground that the balance consideration amount was not

paid within the prescribed period of two months, and hence, the

decree has lost its efficacy and it cannot be executed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent

failed to pay the consideration amount within the stipulated time of

two months. According to the condition mentioned in the decree

itself, the decree is not executable. He would further submit that the

balance amount was deposited with the learned Executing Court on

22.5.2023, whereas the judgment and decree was passed on

23.11.2019; hence, the payment was not made within the prescribed

period. He would further submit that the learned Executing Court

committed an error of law while rejecting the objection raised by the

petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would contend

that a xerox copy of Bank Draft No.000308 of Rs.55,00,000/- dated

14.1.2020 was sent to the petitioner through registered post, and he

was requested to remain present before the learned First Additional

District Judge on 17.1.2020 but he failed to appear and on said date,

an application was also moved by the respondent. Thereafter, the

execution case was filed on 23.1.2020. He would submit that the

respondent had made a bona fide attempt to comply with the decree,

but due to absence of the petitioner, the decree could not be

executed. He would also submit that the consideration amount was

deposited by the respondent before the learned Executing Court on

22.3.2023. He would contend that the respondent has performed his

part of the obligation, whereas the petitioner failed to perform his part,

therefore, the application moved under Section 47 of CPC has been

rejected by the learned Executing Court. He has placed reliance on

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chanda vs.

Rattni, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 26.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents present on record.

8. It appears that the petitioner failed to appear before the Court below

on 17.1.2020 and bank draft could not be handed-over. The amount

was deposited in the CCD account of the learned Executing Court on

22.3.2023.

9. In the matter of Chanda (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that the power to rescind, alter and modify the contract under Section

28 of the 1963 Act, is discretionary, and Court has the authority to

extend the time even though the decree may have directed that

payment of balance price is to be made by a certain date. The court

is required to consider as to whether the default was intentional or

not. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below:

"The decree for specific performance has been described as a preliminary decree. The power under Section 28 of the Act is discretionary and the Court cannot ordinarily annul the decree once passed by it.

Although the power to annul the decree exists yet Section 28 of the Act provides for complete relief to both the parties in terms of the decree. The Court does not cease to have the power to extend the time even though the trial Court had earlier directed in the decree that payment of balance price to be made by certain date and on failure suit to stand dismissed. The power exercisable under this Section is discretionary."

10. In the application moved by the petitioner under Section 47 of CPC,

the petitioner raised the ground that the respondent failed to comply with

the conditions of the decree within the stipulated period of two months,

and therefore, the decree is not executable.

11. A perusal of the documents and the findings recorded by the

learned Executing Court would reveal that the petitioner himself was

negligent. Therefore, the learned Executing Court rightly rejected his

application. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Chanda (supra), held that if there exists a bonafide reason for the delay or

default, and no fault is attributable to the decree holder, the Court may

exercise its discretion to extent the time for depositing the balance

amount. In the present case, xerox copy of bank draft, which was sent