Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subegh Singh vs Lachman Singh on 6 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063511
CR-6806-2015 (O&M) 1
114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-6806-2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.05.2024
Subegh Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Lachman Singh (since deceased) through his LRs
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. D.S.Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.A.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. In this revision petition, the plaintiff assails the correctness
of the order passed by the trial court on 12.08.2015 while dismissing his
application for extending the time/period for the deposit of the balance
amount of sale consideration, which was required to be deposited
pursuant to the conditional decree in a suit for the specific performance
of the agreement to sell.
2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present
case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. The petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific
performance of the agreement to sell with a consequential relief of
permanent injunction. On 16.11.2005, a conditional decree was passed
in favour of the petitioner while directing him to deposit the balance sale
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063511
consideration, within a period of one month from the date of the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Defendant filed the
appeal. Upon re-appreciation of evidence, the First Appellate Court
modified the decree and directed the defendant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in
four installments of Rs.25,000/- each, with reducing interest at the rate
of 9% per annum and fixed the following schedule for the payment of
the amount:-
"(i) First instalment of Rs.25,000/- to be paid on or before
15th May, 2007.
(ii) Second instalment of Rs.25,000/- to be paid on or before
15th November, 2007
(iii) Third instalment of Rs.25,000/- to be paid on or before
15th May, 2008."
4. In the alternative, the court held that if the judgment debtor
fails to pay the amount, the plaintiff shall be entitled to specific
performance.
5. On 14.05.2009, the plaintiff filed an application for
extending the period of deposit of the balance sale consideration on the
ground that the defendant has failed to pay the amount. While replying
the defendant asserted as under:-
"(a) Prior to dated 15.05.2007 i.e the
first date of installment, the respondent/ JD alongwith
Gurdip Singh Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Village
Sherpur Taiban, District Moga approached
applicant/DH many times and tendered him
Rs.25,000/- with interest but he refused to accept the
same. On dated 15.05.2007, respondent/JD through
his counsel Sh.Tara Singh Sandhu, Advocate issued a
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063511
registered AD notice to applicant/DH by requesting
to receive Rs.25,000/- with interest from him. The
applicant/DH in connivance of post man refused to
accept the notice and got make a report that
applicant/DH has left the village by selling his land.
Further on dated 16.05.2007, respondent/JD sent
Rs.26,500/- through six money order to applicant/DH
who refused to receive the same and in this way,
respondent/JD had tried his best to pay the first
installment with interest to applicant/DH but he with
malafide intention had not accepted the same. It is
pertinent to mention here that respondent/JD had
also approached to the learned Court of Additional
District Judge, Moga and moved an application to
deposit the amount in dispute in Court but the
learned Court refused to receive the same with
instruction to respondent/JD that the Court has no
such head in which the amount in dispute can be
deposited, so the respondent/JD should directly pay
the same to applicant/DH.
(b)On dated 15.11.2007, vide a registered letter/AD
No. 596, the respondent/JD tendered Rs. 25,000/- as
second installment to applicant/DH and sent cheque
No. 120971 dated 14.11.2007 worth Rs. 25,000/- of
Punjab National Bank. Dharamkot out of his account
No. 9544 but the applicant also refused to accept the
delivery of this letter.
(c)On dated 14.05.2008 vide a registered letter/AD
No. 3090 dated 14.05.2008, the respondent/JD
tendered Rs. 25,000/- as third installment to
applicant/DH and sent cheque No. 120972 dated
14.05.2008 worth Rs.25,000/- of Punjab National
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063511
Bank, Dharamkot but the applicant also refused to
accept the delivery of this letter.
(d)On dated 10.11.2008 vide a registered letter/AD
No. 5474 dated 10.11.2008, the respondent/JD
tendered Rs. 25,000/- as fourth installment to
applicant/DH and sent cheque No. 120973 dated
10.11.2008 worth Rs.25,000/- of Punjab National
Bank, Dharamkot but the applicant also refused to
accept the delivery of this letter."
6. The trial court dismissed the application. The learned
counsel representing the petitioner contends that delay was not of 4
years but 6 months. He submits that the trial court has erred in
dismissing the petitioner's application.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the parties.
8. It is evident that the defendant has been taking all the
possible steps to pay the amount in accordance with the judgment and
decree passed by the First Appellate Court. With regard to payment of
first instalment, the defendant, after the plaintiff refused to receive the
notice, sent the amount through as many as six money orders.
Thereafter, the second instalment was sought to be paid through a
cheque, which was sent through the registered post but the plaintiff
refused to receive the letter. Similar is the position of the third
instalment as well as 4th instalment. In these circumstances, the plaintiff
does not deserve any indulgence from this Court.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere
is made out.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063511
10. Hence, dismissed.
11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
06.05.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
