Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinderpal Singh Arora ... vs Mehnga Singh on 1 December, 2022
107
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
1. Civil Revision No. 5476 of 2018
Ravinderpal Singh Arora (Since Deceased through his Legal Representatives
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Mehanga Singh
... Respondent(s)
AND
2. Civil Revision No. 9245 of 2018
Ravinderpal Singh Arora (Since Deceased through his Legal
Representatives)
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Mehanga Singh
... Respondent(s)
DATE OF DECISION: 01.12.2022
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. These two connected revision petitions have come up for
disposal. The petitioner is a decree holder. His suit for grant of decree of
possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated
04.04.2005 was allowed on 22.09.2016. The concluding part of the judgment
1 of 6
Civil Revision No. 9245 of 2018
reads as under:-
"Consolidating the discussion referred above, the court holds
that the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed. The plaintiff is held
entitled to specific performance of agreement to sell dated
04.04.05 on payment of balance sale consideration to the
defendant within 2 months from the date of passing of this
judgment, failing which the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get his
right enforced in due course of law. Parties to bear their own
costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned
to record room after due compliance."
2. The petitioner (decree holder) claims that though Sh.Mehnga
Singh (defendant) did not receive the amount, however, in the execution of
a decree passed against Sh.Mohinder Singh, who is the brother of
Sh.Mehnga Singh, the sale deed has been executed by Sh.Mohinder Singh
on 22.11.2016 in favour of the petitioner. The execution petition was filed to
execute the decree on 25.04.2017. The petitioner, while filing the execution
petition, asserted that he has been making efforts to pay the amount to
Sh.Mehanga Singh and he also visited the office of the Sub-Registrar on
21.11.2016.
3. The relevant paragraph of the execution petition is extracted as
under:-
"The Hon'ble Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff/decree
holder on payment of balance sale consideration to the
defendant within two months from the date of passing of the
judgment, failing which the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get his
2 of 6
Civil Revision No. 9245 of 2018
right enforced in due course of law. The decree holder
remained ready and willing to perform his part of contract and
to pay the balance sale consideration to the J.D. The decree
holder many a times verbally requested the J.D to get the sale
deed execute and register in his favour after receiving balance
sale consideration, but the J.D did not heed to the request of
the decree holder. It is pertinent to mention here that another
suit titled as Ravinderpal Singh vs Mohinder Singh was also
decreed along with the present suit. The said Mohinder Singh is
the real brother of present J.D and J.D was also attorney of
said Mohinder Singh in the said suit. The said Mohinder Singh
had already executed sale deed in favour of the person of the
choice of decree holder. On the said date the present J/.D was
also called to get the sale deed execute and register in favour of
decree holder and the decree holder had brought the amount
payable to the J.D on the said day 1.e. 21.11.2016 but the J.D.
did not come up. On the next day again the decree holder kept
on waiting the JD in the Tehsil complex, along with his,
nominee in whose favour the decree holder intends to get the
sale deed execute and register from the JD but again the JD did
not come present. The JD to cover up his failure to get the sale
deed execute and register in favour of decree holder, got
created a false affidavit of his presence in the Tehsil complex,
on 22.11.2016. The decree holder is still ready and willing to
perform his part of contract and get the balance sale
3 of 6
Civil Revision No. 9245 of 2018
consideration deposited before the Hon'ble court as and when
directed by the Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court can appoint
a local commissioner to get the sale deed execute and register
in favour of decree holder on behalf of JD, if JD did not come
present to get the sale deed execute and register in favour of
decree holder. The decree holder is in possession of remaining
sale consideration and expenses of the sale deed to get the
same execute and register from the J.D."
4. Sh.Mehanga Singh filed an application under Section 28 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1963 Act") for
rescission of the contract which has been allowed by the Executing Court on
07.04.2018 while dismissing the execution petition.
5. Challenging the correctness of the aforesaid orders, these two
revision petitions have been filed.
6. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and
with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.
7. On the one hand, the learned counsel representing the petitioner
contends that in compliance with the conditional decree, the petitioner made
efforts to pay the amount to Sh.Mehanga Singh within the given time of two
months, however, he refused to receive the same. He submits that the
plaintiff was given the liberty to get his rights enforced in due course of law
after the expiry of a period of two months from the date of the judgment and
decree. However, if Sh.Mehanga Singh committed default in receiving the
payment, the further period within which the amount was to be deposited
was not specified. He further submits that the petitioner was not afforded
4 of 6
Civil Revision No. 9245 of 2018
any opportunity to prove the fact of such default including his presence in
the office of the Sub-Registrar on 21.11.2016. He was also not permitted to
prove that Sh.Mohinder Singh, brother of Sh.Mehanga Singh had executed a
sale deed in a similar manner in favour of the petitioner on 22.11.2016.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondent submits that the agreement to sell was executed on 04.04.2005
and now, after a period of 17 years has elapsed, it will be inequitable to
permit the enforcement of the decree.
9. This Court has considered the submissions while analyzing the
arguments. It would not be appropriate to express an opinion on the merits
of the case particularly when this Court is of the considered view that the
matter is required to be remitted to the Executing Court for deciding afresh
after granting an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. However, it
would be noted that the trial Court has passed the decree for specific
performance of the agreement to sell on 22.11.2016 after finding that it was
Sh.Mehanga Singh who committed default in performing his part of the
contract. In such circumstances, the petitioner was required to be given an
opportunity to prove his case particularly when while passing the judgment,
the Court did not fix any time in case the defendant fails to receive the
payment within a period of two months.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders are
set aside. Let the Executing Court cull out the necessary issues and permit
the parties to lead their respective evidence. Needless to observe that the
observations made by this Court while passing this order shall not be
construed as a final opinion on the merits of the case. The parties, through
5 of 6
Civil Revision No. 9245 of 2018
their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Executing Court on
22.12.2022. The Executing Court is directed to make sincere endeavours for
expeditious disposal of the execution petition, positively, within a period of
nine months, from today.
11. With the observations made above, both the revision petitions
are disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
December 01, 2022
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
