Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur (Since Deceased Thr ... vs Bhajan Kaur on 15 December, 2022
227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-4106-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision : 15.12.2022
Surjit Kaur (since deceased) through LRs ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Bhajan Kaur ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the impugned order
dated 18.05.2016.
The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 09.06.2000
the DH-plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 07.05.1999. The suit was decreed vide judgment and
decree dated 12.01.2007. The operative part of the decree reads as under :
"It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is hereby
decreed with costs for the relief of specific performance
of agreement dated 7.5.1999, with a direction to the
defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of
the plaintiff regarding the land measuring 5 marlas as
per terms and conditions of the agreement after
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.12.16 12:11
I attest to the accuracy and
receiving the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff is
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR-4106-2016 (O&M) -2-
directed to deposit the balance sale consideration in the
court, within two months from today. Thereafter, the
defendant shall join the execution of the sale deed in
favour of plaintiff as per terms and conditions of the
agreements to sell dated 7.5.1999. If the defendant fails
to do within stipulated period, then the plaintiff will be
at liberty to get the sale deed executed by recourse of
law. In case the plaintiff fails to deposit the remaining
sale consideration, within stipulated period, in that even
the suit of plaintiff shall stand dismissed,
automatically."
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal was
preferred by the JD-defendant-petitioner herein on 21.02.2007. The appeal
came to be dismissed on 03.10.2008. Thereafter, a regular second appeal
bearing RSA-934-2009 was preferred by the JD-defendant-petitioner herein
which was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.10.2009. After the withdrawal of
the regular second appeal, an application to deposit the balance sale
consideration was filed on 09.02.2010. On 10.02.2010, an endorsement was
made on the application itself by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) which
reads as under :
"Be deposited at own
responsibility.
Sd/- 9/2/2010
CJSD"
The DH-plaintiff-respondent herein applied for a certified copy
of the order of this Court passed in RSA-934-2009. Thereafter, an
application for enlargement of time was filed on 15.05.2010. The DH-
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.12.16 12:11
plaintiff-respondent meanwhile also filed an execution petition on
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR-4106-2016 (O&M) -3-
24.07.2010. The JD-defendant-petitioner herein filed objections in the
execution petition and subsequently filed an application under Section 28 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The objections were dismissed vide order
dated 28.10.2013 and the sale deed was executed through the agency of the
Court on 21.11.2013. Aggrieved by the orders, the JD-defendant-petitioner
herein preferred a civil revision petition being CR-7404-2013 and vide order
dated 11.03.2016 this Court remanded the matter to the Executing Court to
dispose off the application for extension of time filed by the DH-plaintiff-
respondent herein and the application filed by the JD-defendant-petitioner
herein under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. Vide the impugned order
dated 18.05.2016, the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act
was dismissed holding that since the sale deed had already been executed,
hence, no further action was required and further that it would be deemed
that the Court had impliedly extended the time.
Learned counsel for the JD-defendant-petitioner would contend
that no reasons whatsoever are forthcoming in the impugned order for
allowing the application for extension of time. Infact, it has been held that
there would be an implied enlargement of time in view of the fact that the
sale deed already stood executed. It is further the contention of learned
counsel that there was a specific clause in the decree by the Trial Court that
in case the sale consideration was not deposited within the stipulated period
then the suit of the DH-plaintiff-respondent would stand dismissed
automatically. Learned counsel for the JD-defendant-petitioner would
contend that the regular second appeal bearing RSA-934-2009 was
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.12.16 12:11
dismissed as withdrawn on 26.10.2009 and the amount even if taken to have
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR-4106-2016 (O&M) -4-
been correctly deposited on 09/10.02.2010 would be beyond the period of
two months and hence no extension could have been granted. In support of
his arguments, learned counsel for the JD-defendant-petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Yelumalai
Vs. N.M. Ravi [2015(2) RCR (Civil) 585].
Per contra, learned counsel for the DH-plaintiff-respondent has
contended that the enlargement of time has rightly been granted and that the
amount was deposited on 09.02.2010 i.e. shortly after the dismissal of the
regular second appeal bearing RSA-934-2009. Learned counsel for the DH-
plaintiff-respondent has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Surinder Pal Soni Vs. Sohan Lal (D) Thru LR & Ors.
[2019(3) RCR (Civil) 883] to contend that extension could have been
granted.
Heard.
In the present case a specific order was passed by this Court in
CR-7404-2013 remanding the case back to the Executing Court to decide the
application filed by the DH-plaintiff-respondent herein for extension of time
as well as the application filed by the JD-defendant-petitioner herein under
Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. A perusal of the impugned order
reveals that the order is totally bereft of any reasoning. Rather it has been
held by the Court that there would be an implied extension of time for
depositing the balance sale consideration on account of the presentation of
the draft sale deed and the appointment of the Local Commissioner for
execution of the sale deed in favour of the DH-plaintiff-respondent herein.
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.12.16 12:11
The impugned order is a non-speaking order and does not deal with the
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR-4106-2016 (O&M) -5-
application for extension of time and hence cannot be sustained in law.
In view of the above, the present revision petition is
accordingly allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Court concerned
to decide the application for extension of time and the application under
Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act afresh on merits, in accordance with
law.
It is made clear that the sale deed executed in favour of the DH-
plaintiff-respondent herein shall be subject to the outcome of the aforesaid
applications. The parties are directed to appear before the Court concerned
on 22.12.2022.
Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
15.12.2022 JUDGE
Yogesh Sharma
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.12.16 12:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
