Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 606 (PNJ)

Jasbir Kaur v. Surjit Singh

2000-05-31

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment 1. This is a revision against the order dated 25-2-1999 passed by the trial Court dismissing the objections filed by Smt. Jasbir Kaur, judgment debtor, and allowing the decree holder to deposit the balance sale price in the Court within two months. 2. The facts which are relevant for decision of the present case are that Surjit Singh, plaintiff, had filed a suit against the defendants for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6-2-1987 allegedly executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the agricultural land measuring 37 kanals 7 marlas. The said suit was contested by the defendants. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (owners) filed separate written statement, while defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (subsequent vendees) filed separate written statement. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 17-12-1992, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 6-2-1987 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the remaining sale price within a period of two months from the said date. The said judgment and decree were challenged by Smt. Jasbir Kaur, defendant No. 3 (subsequent vendee) by way of appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment and decree dated 27-3-1996, affirming the findings of the trial Court on all issues. However, the decree of the trial Court was modified in respect of its form and it was directed that the vendors shall execute the sale deed in accordance with the agreement dated 6-2-1987 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3, appellant (subsequent vendee) shall also join in the execution of the sale deed so as to transfer her rights obtained under the subsequent sale deed. It was further directed that at the time of execution of the sale deed, out of the consideration a sum of Rs. 19,500/- shall be paid to subsequent purchaser Smt. Jasbir Kaur and the balance shall be disbursed to the vendors after deducting the costs. It is not disputed before me that this judgment and decree dated 27-3-1996 passed by the District Judge, affirming the judgment and decree dated 17-12-1992, became final between the parties. 19,500/- shall be paid to subsequent purchaser Smt. Jasbir Kaur and the balance shall be disbursed to the vendors after deducting the costs. It is not disputed before me that this judgment and decree dated 27-3-1996 passed by the District Judge, affirming the judgment and decree dated 17-12-1992, became final between the parties. After the appeal was decided by the District Judge, Surjit Singh, decree holder filed execution petition (on 17-8-1996) alleging therein that the judgment debtors had not complied with the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge and had not executed the sale deed in favour of the decree holder in terms of the agreement to sell dated 6-2-1987. It was prayed in the said application that the judgment debtors be directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land and the decree holder be delivered the actual possession of the suit land by issuing warrants of possession. Thereafter, Jasbir Kaur (subsequent vendee) filed objections dated 21-2-1998 under Sec. 47, CPC, taking up various objections including the plea that the decree holder had not deposited the sale amount within the stipulated time and as such the execution petition was liable to be dismissed. These objections filed by Jasbir Kaur were still pending when Surjit Singh, decree holder, filed an application dated 23-11-1998 for permission to deposit the sale consideration in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 27-3-1996 passed by the District Judge. The said application of the decree holder was contested by defendant No. 3 Jasbir Kaur by filing reply dated 7-1-1999. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 25-2-1999, dismissed the objections filed by Jasbir Kaur, defendant, and allowed the decree holder to deposit the balance sale price in the Court within two months. It is against this order of the trial Court that Jasbir Kaur had filed the present revision petition. 3. Notice of motion was issued. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. 4. It is against this order of the trial Court that Jasbir Kaur had filed the present revision petition. 3. Notice of motion was issued. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that after the judgment and decree dated 27-3-1996 passed by the District Judge, the decree holder had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration and as such the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the objections of the petitioner and granting two months time to the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration, especially when no stay of execution was passed in the appeal and no extension of time was sought from the trial Court at the initial stage. Reliance had been placed on the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case V. S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm V/s. C. Aldappan, (1999) 4 SCC 702 : (AIR 1999 SC 918). On the other hand, learned counsel for the decree holder, respondent No. 1, submitted before me that initially the trial Court gave him two months time from the date of passing of the judgment and decree by the trial Court to deposit the balance sale consideration. He further submitted that subsequently, on filing of the appeal, he had applied to the trial Court for extension of time and time was extended by the trial Court vide order dated 17-2-1993 to deposit the amount till the decision of the appeal. He has placed on record a certified copy of the order dated 17-2-1993 passed by the trial Court in this regard. He also submitted that the judgment and decree dated 27-3-1996 passed by the District Judge was upheld by this Court in RSA 1483 of 1996 decided on 13-5-1997. He has also placed on record a certified copy of the order dated 13-5-1997 passed by this Court. He also submitted that since the District Judge had not fixed any time limit for depositing the balance sale consideration, the decree holder was well within his rights to deposit the balance sale consideration as per the directions given by this Court. He further submitted that after the order dated 25-2-1999 had been passed by the trial Court, the decree holder had deposited the balance sale consideration on 12-4-1999 (within the stipulated period). 5. He further submitted that after the order dated 25-2-1999 had been passed by the trial Court, the decree holder had deposited the balance sale consideration on 12-4-1999 (within the stipulated period). 5. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, I find no merit it in the present revision petition. In the present case, as referred to above, the trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 17-12-1999 and given him two months time to pay the balance sale consideration. In the meanwhile, defendant No. 3 Jasbir Kaur had filed an appeal before the District Judge, whereupon, the plaintiff filed an application under Ss. 148/151, CPC, for staying the deposit of the sale consideration. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 17-2-1993, passed the following order :- "Record seen. Time is extended to deposit the amount of consideration till decision of appeal.Sd/- Ms Virdi, SJIC,Amritsar, 17-2-93" 6 From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that the trial Court had extended the time to deposit the balance sale consideration till the decision of the appeal. Admittedly, the appeal was dismissed by the District Judge on 27-3-1996 with some modification in the form of the decree. While dismissing the appeal, admittedly, no time was fixed by the District Judge by which the plaintiff was required to deposit the balance sale consideration. 7. In Kharak Singh V/s. Harbhajan Singh 1978 Cur LJ (Civil) 470 (Punj and Har), it was held by this Court that where the Court had passed a decree for possession by way of specific performance in favour of the decree holder on deposit of certain some amount, but did not fix any time for depositing the amount, the limitation for executing the decree would be 12 years and the decree holder was entitled to deposit the amount within the period of limitation and execute the decree. Since in the present case, the District Judge had not fixed any time for the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration; the decree holder filed execution petition and when the objection was taken by the present petitioner that the balance sale consideration had not been deposited, the decree holder filed an application for fixing time for depositing the balance sale consideration. After hearing both the sides, the executing Court dismissed the objections of the present petitioner and allowed time to the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration. Within the stipulated time, admittedly the decree holder had deposited the balance sale consideration. 8. The authority (1999) 4 SCC 702 : (AIR 1999 SC 918) (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, would be of no help to the petitioner. In the reported case, the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale was decreed by the trial Court on 31-1-1983 in favour of the plaintiff with a direction to the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration and direction to the defendant to execute the sale deed. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal in the High Court which was dismissed on 28-2-1985. While dismissing the appeal of the judgment debtors, the High Court did not grant any extension of time to the plaintiff for deposit of the balance sale consideration. Three years after the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court, the decree holder filed execution petition. One of the contentions raised by the judgment debtor was that the decree holder had failed to deposit the balance amount of consideration in terms of the decree. The executing Court dismissed the execution petition of the decree holder, holding that the balance sale consideration had not been deposited within the stipulated time. The order was challenged by way of revision in the High Court. An application was also filed for extension of time. The judgment debtor raised objection in the High Court regarding filing of the said application in the High Court, when no such application was filed before the trial Court. Thereupon, the High Court remitted the matter to the executing Court with a direction to dispose of the said application as interlocutory application observing that the appellate Court had got power to extend the time. Aggrieved against the said order of the High Court, the judgment debtor filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. Thereupon, the High Court remitted the matter to the executing Court with a direction to dispose of the said application as interlocutory application observing that the appellate Court had got power to extend the time. Aggrieved against the said order of the High Court, the judgment debtor filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. On these facts, it was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that the agreement of sale was entered into on 18-2-1980 i.e. about 19 years ago and no explanation was forthcoming as to why the balance amount of consideration could not be deposited within the time granted by the trial Court and why no application was made under Sec. 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking extension of time for the deposit of the balance sale consideration and could the Court as a matter of course, allow extension of time for making payment of balance amount of consideration in terms of a decree after 5 years of the passing of the decree by the trial Court and after 3 years of its confirmation by the appellate Court. It was further observed that no explanation whatsoever was coming from the decree holders as to why they did not pay the balance amount of consideration as per the decree and that being so, the equity demanded that discretion be not exercised in favour of the decree holders and no extension of time be granted to comply with the decree. 9. However, the facts of the present case are entirely different and the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority would have no application to the facts of the present case. As referred to above, in the present case, after the decree was passed by the trial Court and two months time was granted to the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration, one of the judgment debtors had filed an appeal and thereupon the decree holder had filed an application under Sections 148/151, C.P.C, for staying the deposit of the sale consideration and the learned trial Court, vide order dated 17-2-1993, had extended the time to deposit the amount of consideration till the decision of the appeal. When the appeal was dismissed on 27-3-1996, no order was passed by the learned District Judge, granting time to the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration. When the appeal was dismissed on 27-3-1996, no order was passed by the learned District Judge, granting time to the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration. When during the execution proceedings the judgment debtor raised objection in this regard, the decree holder filed application for extension of time and the same was granted by the trial Court vide order dated 25-2-1999 and within the stipulated period, the decree holder had deposited the balance sale consideration. On the facts of the present case, it could not be said that there was any fault on the part of the decree holder in not depositing the balance sale consideration. Furthermore, in the present case, the decree holder had filed the application not only at the initial stage for extension of time, which was allowed and time was extended, but had also filed an application before the trial Court for extension of time and this time again the time was extended by the trial Court. The law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in (1999) 4 SCC 702 : (AIR 1999 SC 918) (supra), thus, would have no application to the facts of the present case. 10. In view of my detailed discussion above, in my opinion, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the objection of the judgment debtor and in extending the time to deposit the balance sale consideration and no fault can be found with the said order passed by the trial Court. 11. In view of the above, finding no merit in this revision petition, I hereby dismiss the same. No costs. 12. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24-7-2000 for further proceedings in accordance with law.Revision dismissed.