Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1092 (PNJ)

Gurjit Singh v. Amrinder Singh

2007-05-10

H.S.BHALLA

body2007
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. The petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by filing the present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by virtue of which he has challenged the order dated 13,6.2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur by virtue of which the order of the lower Court dated 16.11.2005 was held to be illegal and appeal of the respondents was accepted and the order of the lower court was set aside. 2. The other facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that the present plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents pleading therein that Kuldip Singh and Gurjinder Singh, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, had executed an agreement to sell dated 3.4.2003 to alienate land measuring 17 Kanals 06 Marias. As sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lac) was paid as earnest money to the petitioner at the time of agreement. Again a sum of Rs. 5 lac was paid to the petitioner on 1.5.2003. Remaining sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed and registered on 30.9.2004. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had executed five sale deeds qua land measuring 3 kanals 3 marlas and received Rs. 27,44,500/- out of the sale consideration, i.e. Rs. 10 lac as earnest money and Rs. 17,44,500/- towards part payment and sale consideration, that total consideration to purchase land measuring 16 Kanals 3 Marias was Rs. 75,70,312.50 P.; that Rs. 48,25,812.50P. remained to be paid as balance sale consideration; that before the agreement dated 3.4.2003 respondents had already executed sale deed qua land measuring 1 Kanal 03 Marias out of the land going to be sold to the applicant but this fact was not disclosed to the applicant by respondent Nos. 2 and 3; that title of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was not valid and legal qua land measuring 1 Kanal 3 Marias mentioned in the agreement of sale, that the respondents committed breach of agreement of sale deed dated 3.4.2003 and did not executed sale deed in favour of the applicant; that at the time of agreement dated 3.4.2003 actual possession of the land going to be sold was delivered to the applicant. Boundary wall was constructed. Boundary wall was constructed. The applicant filed a suit for specific performance on 11.11.2004 and the suit was decreed as per statements of the parties. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 13.10.2005. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not execute the sale deed as per judgment and decree dated 12.9.2005. The execution application was filed as per judgment and decree. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have executed sale deeds on 19.10.2005 in favour of his family members of valuable land. Boundary wall was also demolished. The respondents threatened to interfere and take forcible possession of the property after demolishing the boundary wall and road etc. 3. The suit was contested by the respondents and through written statement, they denied most of the assertions raised by the present petitioner and prayed that the suit be dismissed. However, they have categorically pleaded that after judgment and decree dated 12.9.2005, they issued notice to the present petitioner with a request to get the sale deed executed as per judgment and decree after obtaining sale consideration and they remained present before the office of the Sub Registrar to execute the sale deed, but the petitioner failed to turn up. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it is crystal clear that the present petitioner could have filed an execution application in case Kuldip Singh and Gurjinder Singh respondents had refused to execute the sale deed as per judgment and decree dated 12.9.2005 and the sale deed could easily be got executed through the Court by depositing the remaining sale consideration, but the present petitioner did not follow this course and instead of filing execution application, he filed the present suit. In the execution application, he could easily move the Court with a request that Kuldip Singh and Gurjinder Singh be restrained from signing the sale deed in favour of third person as per agreement 30.9. 2004. As per judgment and decree dated 12.9.2005 sale deed was to be executed on or before 13.10.2005. In the execution application, he could easily move the Court with a request that Kuldip Singh and Gurjinder Singh be restrained from signing the sale deed in favour of third person as per agreement 30.9. 2004. As per judgment and decree dated 12.9.2005 sale deed was to be executed on or before 13.10.2005. When Gurjit Singh failed to get the sale deed executed, then Kuldip Singh and Gurjinder filed an application dated 10.5.2006 under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for the rescission of agreement of sale deed dated 3.4.2003 and the decree dated 16.9.2005 passed in favour of Gurjit Singh. It appears that the present suit was filed in order to prolong the matter and in fact, as already discussed above, remedy with Gurjit Singh was to approach the executing Court. I would also like to observe that it is an admitted case of the parties that ultimately the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2005 and if the respondents were not to follow the decree, then the present petitioner had the remedy to approach the concerned court to file an application under Order 21 Rule 32 or under Order 21 Rule 35, Civil Procedure Code. No explanation has come forward as to why remaining sale consideration was not deposited. Instead of depositing the remaining sale consideration, the present petitioner opted to file a suit for permanent injunction. Moreover, I would also like to observe that when a suit is decreed, course of action left with the petitioner is to execute the decree under Order 21 Rule 32 or 21 Rule 35, Civil Procedure Code before the appropriate Civil Court and the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing Civil revision petition is not available to him. In view of this, no case is made out to allow this petition. There is nothing to be set right and no interference is called for in the well reasoned order dated 13.6.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur. 6. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the present petition, it is dismissed with no orders as to costs.