Wednesday, 03, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Babbar Bhan Thr Lr vs Banarasi Das Thr Lr And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 6455 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 6455 P&H
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Babbar Bhan Thr Lr vs Banarasi Das Thr Lr And Others on 21 March, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042134




CR-1831-2024 (O&M)               1            2024:PHHC:042134


139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CR-1831-2024 (O&M)
                                        Date of decision: 21.03.2024

Babbar Bhan (since deceased) through his LR
                                          ....Petitioner

            Versus

Banarasi Dass (since deceased) through his Lrs and others

                                              ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:-   Mr.Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate for the petitioner

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

1. This is the judgment debtor's revision petition to assail the

correctness of the Executing Court's order dated 27.02.2024, while

dismissing his application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act,

1963 as well as dismissing his objection petition.

2. In a suit for possession by way of the specific performance

of the agreement to sell, the trial court decreed the suit on 08.04.2013.

The penultimate paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-

"25. As a sequel to afore mentioned discussion, the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and the same is hereby decreed with costs. Decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 3.5.2008 Ex.P6 is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and as against defendant. The defendant is directed to get the sale deed executed and registered in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated

3.5.2008 Ex.P6, within a period of two months from today after receiving the balance sale consideration amount. The defendant is restrained from alienating the suit property to any other person except the

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042134

CR-1831-2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:042134

plaintiffs. In case, the defendant fails to get the sale deed executed and registered within the period of two months from today, then the plaintiffs shall be liberty to get the sale deed executed and registered through process of Court. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance."

3. The petitioner filed the first appeal, which was dismissed on

11.09.2018. On 24.04.2019, the decree-holder filed the execution

petition alongwith an application for permission to deposit the amount.

However, the Executing Court issued notice to the judgment debtor and

thereafter, proceeded to decide the objection petition. The application

filed by the judgment debtor under Section 28 was also dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length

and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has made

the following submissions:-

i) The execution petition has been filed after a delay of

11 years.

ii) The decree-holder was never ready and willing to

perform his part of the contract.

iii) The First Appellate Court never granted any interim

protection to the petitioners.

iv) The decree-holder has never applied for extension of

time for deposit of the amount.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel representing the parties.





                                  2 of 4

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042134




CR-1831-2024 (O&M)               3            2024:PHHC:042134

7. It is evident that there is an error in the directions issued by

the trial court in the penultimate. There is no direction by the trial court

that the decree-holder will deposit the balance sale consideration in the

court within the period specified which is the requirement of the law. In

a suit for the specific performance of the agreement to sell, the court is

required to pass a conditional decree directing the decree-holder to

deposit the remaining amount within the period specified by the court.

Moreover, it is the petitioner, who filed the first appeal, which remained

pending for more than 6 years. The decree-holder was issued notice in

the appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed only on 11.09.2018.

Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court merged into the

judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Some time

was taken for supply of copy of the judgment and decree passed by the

First Appellate Court. The execution petition alongwith an application

for deposit of the amount was filed within six months from the judgment

and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the first

submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner has no

basis.

8. As far as the second submission of the learned counsel

representing the petitioner is concerned, it may be noted that

concurrently the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court has

recorded a finding that the plaintiffs/decree-holders were always ready

and willing to perform their part of the contract. The attention of the

Court has not been drawn to sufficient material to prove that the decree-

holder, after the judgment and decree was passed by the First Appellate

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042134

CR-1831-2024 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:042134

Court, neglected to pay the amount. At the cost of repetition, the decree-

holders filed an application for permission to deposit the amount

alongwith the execution petition, however, the court did not pass the

order.

9. Learned counsel representing the petitioner's third

submission needs no further elaboration, particularly when the judgment

and decree passed by the trial court has merged into the judgment and

decree passed by the First Appellate Court. In this case, as already

noticed, the decree passed by the trial court was not in accordance with

law. Hence, the decree-holder cannot be made to suffer for the mistake

of the court.

10. With reference to the last submission, it may be noticed that

the Executing Court has found that the execution petition was promptly

filed by the decree-holders.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere

is made out.

12. Hence, dismissed.

13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.



21.03.2024                                        (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                   JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :           Yes/No
Whether reportable :                  Yes/No




                                   4 of 4

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter