Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Victor Cycles Pvt Ltd vs Sarvesh Kumar Jindal on 16 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
140. 2024:PHHC:038697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.7859 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.03.2024
Sawinder Kaur .... Petitioner
Versus
Dalbir Singh .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Ms. Tuneet Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
----
GURBIR SINGH, J. (Oral)
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks to withdraw present revision petition with liberty to avail appropriate
remedy.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.
Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(GURBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
March 18, 2024
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
1 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
103. 2024:PHHC:042342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.5090-CII-2024 in
Date of decision: 22.03.2024
Renu .... Appellant
Versus
Yash Pal and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate,
for the appellant (through Video Conferencing).
Mr. Abhimanyu Batra, Advocate,
for the applicant-respondent No.3.
----
GURBIR SINGH, J. (Oral)
CM No.5090-CII-2024
1. Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC by
respondent No.3-Insurance Company is for disposal of present appeal on
the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.
2. Notice in the application.
3. Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, has caused appearance on
behalf of non-applicant/appellant through video conferencing. Copy of the
application has already been received by him on 14.03.2024.
4. The application is allowed and with the consent of counsel for
the parties, hearing in the main case which is fixed for 21.04.2024 is
preponed and the same is taken up for hearing today itself.
1. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the
Insurance Company is ready to pay Rs.7,50,000/- as full and final
2 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
settlement of claim over and above the amount already awarded by the
Tribunal. He along with authorized representative of Insurance Company
undertakes that the enhanced amount will be paid within a period of eight
weeks and if not paid within that period, interest @ 9% per annum will be
paid from the date of settlement till date of its realization.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
agrees to the proposal made by the respondent-Insurance Company and the
award be enhanced accordingly.
3. Considering the fact that the parties have settled the matter and
the amount of award has been enhanced at Rs.7,50,000/- as full and final
settlement of claim over and above the amount of Rs.4,39,386/- already
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, vide its award
dated 11.11.2013 and the said amount shall be paid/deposited in the account
of claimant within eight week from today, failing which, interest @ 9% per
annum shall be paid on the enhanced amount from today till realization of
the amount, so, this appeal is disposed off that enhanced amount shall be
paid to the appellant-claimant as per proposal. Award passed by the
Tribunal is modified accordingly.
(GURBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
March 22, 2024
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
proposal of the Insurance Company for full and final settlement of
compensation at Rs.7,50,000/- over and above the amount of Rs.4,39,386/-
already awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, vide its
award dated 11.11.2013, with an undertaking to pay/deposit the same
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order, failing which, interest @ 9% per annum shall be paid on the
enhanced amount, has been accepted by learned counsel for the appellant
on 15.03.2024 (Annexure A-1) so, this appeal is disposed off that enhanced
amount shall be paid to the respondent-claimant as per pr
7. The respective parties shall be bound by their statements in
letter and spirit.
4 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
5 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
6 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
137. 2024:PHHC:038750
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024
Reserved on 14.03.2024
Pronounced on: 16.04.2024
M/s Victor Cycles Private Limited, 409, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana,
through its Managing Director Vinay Gupta
.... Petitioner
Versus
Sarvesh Kumar Jindal .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Aashna Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent/caveator.
----
GURBIR SINGH, J.
1. Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is to the order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure P-18)
passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the
application moved by the petitioner-Judgment Debtor under Section 28 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has been dismissed.
2. In brief, the facts which are necessary for the decision of this
revision petition are that the respondent-plaintiff Decree Holder filed a suit
for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 07.01.2006 in respect of
suit property bearing No.409 situated at Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana. Vide
judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed
7 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:038750
and the petitioner-defendant-Judgment Debtor was directed to execute sale
deed in favour of plaintiff within a period of two months and the plaintiff
was also directed to deposit the balance sale consideration within a period
of two months. The Judgment Debtor filed appeal, which was dismissed
vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2019. Regular Second Appeal
No.3921 of 2019 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 01.09.2023. Even
SLP (C) No.49868 of 2023 was also dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2024.
2.1 The Decree Holder filed execution application. He also filed
application dated 07.10.2023 for permission to deposit the balance sale
consideration of Rs.96 lakhs. The petitioner-Judgment Debtor filed reply/
objection to execution application that balance sale consideration was
Rs.98,32,000/- and not Rs.96 lakhs, but the Decree Holder deposited only
Rs.96 lakhs instead of Rs.98,32,000/-.
2.2 The petitioner-Judgment Debtor moved an application dated
30.08.2019 under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for recession of the
contract and same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.02.2024.
2.3 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
Judgment Debtor has argued that the provisions of Section 28 of the
Specific Relief Act are mandatory and if there is a default by the Decree
Holder in the payment of balance sale consideration as per the directions
given by the trial Court, then the contract between the parties stands
rescinded. There had been a specific direction to the Decree Holder to
deposit the balance sale consideration within two months but instead of
depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.98,32,000/-, only Rs.96
8 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:038750
lakhs were deposited. It has been further argued that total amount of
consideration was Rs.1,31,00,000/-. Out of said amount, a sum of Rs.2
lakhs was paid by way of cheque dated 08.12.2005 to the Decree Holder
and Rs.18 lakhs by way of cash. Sum of Rs.10 lakhs was paid on
15.02.2006 and Rs.5 lakhs on 01.08.2006. Thus, the total earnest money
paid was to the tune of Rs.35 lakhs. Sum of Rs.2 lakhs which was received
by way of cheque dated 08.12.2005 was returned vide cheque No.6050331,
dated 13.04.2007 of Rs.2,32,000/- (Rs.32,000/- as interest and Rs.3,570/- as
TDS). Said cheque was admittedly encashed by the respondent-Decree
Holder, which fact is apparent from the replication (Annexure P-3) and
statement of Decree Holder-PW2 (Annexure P-5). Even in the Income Tax
Return for the financial year 2007-08, the amount of Rs.2,32,000/- has been
shown credited in the account of the Firm of the respondent-Decree Holder
and the respondent-Decree Holder also in his application dated 18.04.2007
(Annexure P-4) filed in the Central Bank of India acknowledged the receipt
of said amount. Said objection has been raised by the petitioner-Judgment
Debtor since the very inception in the execution petition. There was non-
compliance of the decree passed by the trial Court. Sum of Rs.2 lakhs was
paid vide cheque dated 08.12.2005 whereas agreement to sell was dated
07.01.2006 and the said amount already stood returned to M/s Serve
Overseas, the firm of the respondent. Even no application for extension of
time to deposit balance sale consideration was moved.
2.4 Learned senior counsel has further argued that even delay of
one day was not condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case P.R.
9 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:038750
Yelumalai Versus N.M. Ravi, (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 52. Reliance
is also placed upon case P. Shyamala Versus Gundlur Masthan, 2023(2)
R.C.R. (Civil) 135 and Prem Jeevan Versus K.S. Venkata Raman and
another, (2017) 11 Supreme Court Cases 57.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
caveator-Decree Holder has argued that the Decree Holder complied with
the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by
the higher courts. The plea of payment of Rs.2,32,000/- including TDS of
Rs.3,750/- was also raised before the trial Court as well as before the
learned appellate Court by the Judgment Debtor and the same was rejected.
Even in the balance-sheet, the petitioner-Judgment Debtor had shown Rs.35
lakhs as advance against the sale of property and amount of Rs.2,32,000/-
was found to be having no connection with the agreement to sell or sale
consideration. Said amount has been shown as advance to M/s Serve
Overseas in the balance-sheet maintained by the Judgment Debtor. The suit
was filed on 10.04.2007 and notice was served upon Judgment Debtor on
13.04.2007 and the cheque, in question, in favour of M/s Serve Overseas
was issued 16.04.2007. Any amount deposited in the account of firm cannot
be taken as paid to Decree Holder. It has been further submitted that the
firm is itself a juristic person. On noticing by the firm that some amount
was credited wrongly in its account, the Bank was immediately informed.
The Decree Holder never received said amount in his personal capacity and
is not liable to account for the same in his personal capacity.
10 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 -5- 2024:PHHC:038750
4. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the file.
5. Section 28 of Specific Relief Act reads as under:-
"28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the
sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance
of which has been decreed.--
(1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a
contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been
made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period
allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may
allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the court
has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the
same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract
rescinded and on such application the court may, by order,
rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in
default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require.
(2) to (5) ........"
5.1 In case Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (dead) Versus Balaji
Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath) and another, 2022(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 37,
it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Section 28 of the Specific
Relief Act permits the Judgment Debtor to seek rescission of contract but it
also permits extension of time by the Court to pay balance amount.
5.2 In case Chanda (dead) through LRs Versus Rattni and
another, 2007 AIR (Supreme Court) 1514, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the Court cannot ordinarily annul the decree for specific
11 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 -6- 2024:PHHC:038750
performance once passed by it. Para Nos.8 and 9 of said judgment read as
under:-
"8. The present section corresponds to Section 35 (c) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (hereinafter referred to as the
'repealed Act') under which it was open to the Vendor or
lessor in the circumstances mentioned in that Section to bring
a separate suit for rescission; but this Section goes further and
gives to the Vendor or lessor the right to seek rescission in the
same suit, when after the suit for specific performance is
decreed the plaintiff fails to pay the purchase money within the
period fixed. The present section, therefore, seeks to provide
complete relief to both the parties in terms of a decree for
specific performance in the same suit without requiring one of
the parties to initiate separate proceedings. The object is to
avoid multiplicity of suits. Likewise under the present
provision where the purchaser or lessee has paid the money,
he is entitled in the suit for specific performance to the reliefs
as indicated in sub-section (3) like, partition, possession etc. A
suit for specific performance does not come to an end on
passing of a decree and the Court which has passed the decree
for specific performance retains the control over the decree
even after the decree has been passed.
9. 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
12 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 -7- 2024:PHHC:038750
stand dismissed. The power exercisable under this Section is
discretionary."
5.3 In the instant case, suit was filed on 10.04.2007 for specific
performance of agreement to sell dated 07.01.2006 with the averments that
agreement to sell was executed for a total sale consideration of
Rs.1,31,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.2 lakhs was paid vide cheque dated
08.12.2005 drawn from Central Bank of India, Focal Point, Ludhiana and
Rs.33 lakhs was paid by way of cheque on different dates. A total amount
of Rs.35 lakhs was paid as earnest money. Even the Judgment Debtor took
the plea that the so-called agreement to sell propounded between the parties
with a view to provide a collateral security to the amount of loan advanced
by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant/petitioner-Judgment Debtor
received the amount of loan on different dates. The amount of Rs.2 lakhs
was earlier also received by the defendant-Judgment Debtor by way of
cheque of Rs.2 lakhs dated 08.12.2005 of M/s Serve Overseas. An amount
of Rs.2 lakhs has already been returned through cheque to M/s Serve
Overseas along with interest of Rs.32,000/- and Rs.3,570/- as TDS. M/s
Serve Overseas wrote a letter dated 18.04.2007 to the Manager, Central
Bank of India, Focal Point, Ludhiana (Annexure P-4, Ex.P-34 in the trial
Court) and the plaintiff-Decree Holder as partner of M/s Serve Overseas
that as on 18.04.2007, an amount of Rs.2,32,000/- has been credited in their
account on 17.04.2007 through clearing cheque No.6050331, but no such
cheque was got deposited by them in their account and said amount was
wrongly credited in their account and needful be done in the matter so as to
13 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 -8- 2024:PHHC:038750
rectify the statement of account. There is no dispute that the plaintiff-
Decree Holder was partner of M/s Serve Overseas and a sum of
Rs.2,32,000/- was received in the account of the said firm by way of
cheque. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led on the file and also
considering the said plea, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and
decree dated 30.11.2012. The operative part of relief clause reads as under:-
"In view of my above discussion, suit of the plaintiff is
decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to execute the
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of two
months and the plaintiff is also directed to deposit the balance
sale consideration within a period of two months. However it
is made clear that if the defendant would not execute the sale
deed of the suit property, the plaintiff would be at liberty to get
the sale deed executed through the court. Decree sheet be
drawn and file be consigned to record."
5.4 The petitioner-Judgment Debtor filed appeal and along with
appeal, an application for staying the judgment and decree dated
30.11.2012 was also moved. Learned counsel for the Decree Holder made
statement, the extract of which reads as under:-
"......... that he had no objection if execution of judgment and
decree dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned trial court is
stayed subject to furnishing bank guarantee and further
staying the deposit of the remaining amount of consideration
of Rs. 96 lacs in terms of judgment dated 30.11.2012."
Accordingly, application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC was allowed subject
to furnishing bank guarantee by the Judgment Debtor before the trial Court
14 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 -9- 2024:PHHC:038750
for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs and further, the period to deposit remaining sale
consideration was also extended till further orders vide order dated
28.01.2013. Vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2019, the appeal filed
by the petitioner-Judgment Debtor was dismissed. Regular Second Appeal
No.3921 of 2019 filed was also dismissed. During the pendency of said
RSA, the plaintiff-Decree Holder moved an application for execution of the
decree in which Judgment Debtor filed objections. Special Leave Petition
was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5.5 The respondent-Decree Holder moved an application dated
07.10.2023 for permission to deposit balance sale consideration of Rs.96
lakhs. The petitioner-Judgment Debtor filed objections that a sum of
Rs.2,32,000/- had already been received in the account of the Decree
Holder and the Decree Holder-plaintiff deposited only Rs.96 lakhs. A right
has been accrued to the Judgment Debtor for recession of contract and the
application to that effect has also been filed.
5.6 Application under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act was filed
on 30.08.2019. Reply to said application was also filed. Said application
was dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.02.2024.
5.7 In case P.R. Yelumalai Versus N.M. Ravi (supra), the decree
was conditional. It was mentioned in the decree itself by the trial Court that
if balance amount of sale consideration was not deposited within one month
from the date of the decree, suit would be deemed to have been dismissed.
It was held that a conditional decree is self-operative, therefore, non-
compliance with the condition(s) led to automatic dismissal of suit. In case
15 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 - 10 - 2024:PHHC:038750
P. Shyamala (supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that power
under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and the Court
has to pass order as justice may require. Section 28 of said Act seeks to
provide complete relief to both the parties in terms of the decree for specific
performance. In that case, balance sale consideration of Rs.15 lakh was
directed to be deposited by the plaintiff within two weeks, but there was
nothing on record that any steps were taken by the plaintiff to deposit said
balance sale consideration. Application under Section 148 CPC and Section
28 of the Specific Relief Act was filed after delay of 853 days. It was held
that in the absence of any sufficient explanation, such a huge delay of 853
days ought not to have been condoned by the trial Court. In case Prem
Jeevan (supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that unless Decree
Holder seeks extension of time to pay the decretal amount and the same is
granted by the Court, there can be no automatic extension of time. All these
authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help for
the decision of the case.
5.8 The matter in issue between the parties is as under:-
Whether amount of Rs.2,32,000/- including Rs.32,000/- as
interest and Rs.3,570/- as TDS, deposited on 17.04.2007 in the
account of M/s Serve Overseas in which Decree Holder is a
partner is to be counted as return of amount of Rs.2 lakhs from
the amount of earnest money received by the Judgment
Debtor.
16 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 - 11 - 2024:PHHC:038750
Said plea was also taken in the written statement filed by the Judgment
Debtor, the extract of para 3 of said written statement reads as under:-
"3. ....... Rather out of total loan amount Rs.2,00,000/- has
already been returned through cheque to M/s Serve Overseas,
alongwith interest Rs.32,000/- plus 3570 as TDS. ......"
It was further plea in the written statement that defendant received a sum
of Rs.2 lakhs as cheque of M/s Serve Overseas on 08.12.2005 prior to the
date of agreement to sell. Even otherwise also it was not the case of
petitioner-defendant-Judgment Debtor that said amount was deposited in
the account of firm as per instruction of respondent-Decree Holder-
plaintiff. Any amount can be deposited in the account of other. There are
many ways including e-transfer. If such a plea is accepted then in order to
defeat the right, a person may deposit the amount without the knowledge of
other party and lateron would take such type of defence. The Court is not
meant to legalize the illegality. At the time of staying the operation of the
impugned order, the Decree Holder specifically made a statement that
balance amount of Rs.96 lakhs was due. At that time also, the Judgment
Debtor did not raise any objection that balance amount was not Rs.96 lakhs
but it was Rs.98 lakhs. Since agreement was executed in personal capacity
and no amount of earnest money was returned to the Decree Holder in
personal capacity, the learned trial Court has very well considered the same
in order dated 14.02.2024, the extract of said order reads as under:-
"So far as plea with respect to deficiency in the amount
tendered by Decree Holder is concerned, it would be apposite
17 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 - 12 - 2024:PHHC:038750
to refer to the relevant portion by learned trial court, which
could be reproduced as follows:-
"With regard to payment of Rs. 2 lacs, the plaintiff
categorically stated that it was given as token money
and cheque was got issued by him not from his account
but from his firm Serve Overseas and he is one of the
partner of the said firm and there are two partners of
the said firm i.e. himself and his father Gopi Chand. He
had taken consent of Gopi Chand at the time of issuance
of cheque for a sum of Rs.2 lacs which was verbal.
Plaintiff in cross-examination properly explained the
fact that although the amount of Rs.2 lac was paid by
cheque from the account of firm Serve Overseas but the
same was paid by him in connection with the present
transaction as token money. At this stage cross
examination of PW5 Raman Kumar Jain is also
necessary to be discussed in which he stated that there
was no business transaction between the defendant and
M/s Serve Overseas. Meaning thereby there was no
question of depositing the said amount in the account of
M/s Serve Overseas. Although the defendant deposited
the amount of Rs. 2,32,000/- in the account of M/s Serve
Overseas regarding which the defendant send letter to
the bank regarding making of wrong entry of Rs.
2,32,000/- in the account of Serve Overseas."
Further, it would be apposite to refer to relevant excerpt
of Judgment and decree dated 26.03.2019 passed by learned
First Appellate Court, which could be reproduced as follows:-
"The defendant further pleaded that out of the total loan
amount Rs.2 Lacs has already been returned through
18 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 - 13 - 2024:PHHC:038750
cheque to M/s Serve Overseas alongwith interest of Rs.
32,000/- and Rs.3570/-as TDS".
Aforementioned paragraphs of the Judgments passed by
learned trial court as well as learned first appellate court
clearly establish that the plea raised by applicant/Judgment
Debtor in the application in hand with respect to the deficiency
in the amount tendered by respondent/Decree Holder was
raised by Judgment Debtor at the time of trial, as well as at
the time of filing of first appeal in order to assail the readiness
and willingness of the respondent/Decree Holder/plaintiff.
However, learned trial court as well as learned first appellate
court repelled the plea of the applicant/Judgment Debtor.
Further perusal of order dated 1 September 2023 passed by
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA no.3921 of
2019, preferred by applicant/Judgment Debtor again reveals
that applicant/Judgment Debtor assailed the readiness and
willingness of the respondent/Decree Holder while asserting
that deficient balance consideration was being tendered by
respondent/Decree Holder, but again aforesaid RSA moved by
applicant/Judgment Debtor came to be dismissed and plea of
the applicant/Judgment Debtor was repelled. Further learned
counsel for respondent/Decree Holder has placed on record
the copy of the Paper Book filed by the applicant/Judgment
Debtor while moving SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court. Perusal
of para no. 'g' of the written Synopsis filed alongwith SLP,
para no.5-A of the Grounds filed alongwith SLP and para no.
M of page 32 of SLP moved by applicant/Judgment Debtor
clearly reveals that plea of deficiency in the balance sale
consideration amount proposed to be tendered by the
respondent/Decree Holder was again raised before Hon'ble
Apex Court. However it is an admitted fact between the parties
19 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 - 14 - 2024:PHHC:038750
that SLP preferred by applicant/Judgment Debtor has already
been dismissed. Meaning thereby that the plea of the
deficiency in the balance consideration, which is now being
raised by applicant/Judgment Debtor under the provisions
envisaged in Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act has already
been raised by him before learned trial court, learned first
appellate court, before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court as well as before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under
the pretext of assailing the readiness and willingness of
respondent/Decree Holder. However, on all the four
occasions, plea of the applicant/Judgment Debtor has been
repelled. Now, the question which arises for the consideration
of this court that whether the plea, which has been directly and
substantially in issue before learned trial court, learned first
appellate court, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as
well as before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and it has been
repelled by all the courts, could the applicant/Judgment
Debtor be allowed to agitate the same plea before the
executing court, the answer would obviously be in an emphatic
'no'. In this regard, my views are further fortified by the
observations given by Hon'ble Tripura High Court in judgment
reported as Smt. Rosna Begam W/o Late Safi Ullah Vs. Smt.
Jasmin Begam W/o Shri Jaynal Abedin 2017 AIR CC 1255, by
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in judgment
reported as Medical Supdt. E.S.I. Hospital, Amritsar Vs. Prem
Lala and another 2004(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 693, by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in judgment reported as P.V. Jose V.
Kanichkammal, AIR 2000 SC 2688."
6. There is no dispute that there was no delay in depositing
amount of Rs.96 lakhs. Since the balance amount of consideration was
20 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038750
Civil Revision No.1572 of 2024 - 15 - 2024:PHHC:038750
Rs.96 lacs and the same was deposited well in time, the learned trial Court
has passed a reasoned order dismissing the application under Section 28
of Specific Relief Act. I do not find any ground to interfere in the lawful
order passed by the court. The revision petition is without any merit and
same is dismissed accordingly.
(GURBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
April 16, 2024
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
21 of 21
