Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 822 (PNJ)

Karamjit Singh v. Tarsempal

2013-07-04

L.N.MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Defendant by filing this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), treated as revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has challenged order dated 24.12.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-1) filed by respondents/plaintiffs under Sections 148 and 151 CPC for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration. 2. Respondents filed suit against the petitioner for specific performance of agreement to sell the suit land. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.1997. First appeal, preferred by defendant, was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2001, thereby directing the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration within two months. 3. The plaintiffs in their application (Annexure P-1) alleged that their counsel had not informed them about the decision of the appeal and requirement to deposit the balance sale consideration within two months. The plaintiffs learnt of the same on 06.04.2002 when plaintiff No.5- Darshan Pal contacted their counsel and thereupon application was moved for obtaining certified copies of judgment and decree of the Appellate Court and the same was delivered on 12.04.2002 and thereupon application (Annexure P-1) was moved without delay on 15/16.04.2002. 4. Defendant-petitioner resisted the aforesaid application by filing reply (Annexure P-2) and controverted of the averments of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that respondents-Tarsem Lal and Darshan Pal were present when judgment was pronounced by the lower Appellate Court on 23.10.2001. 5. Learned lower Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 24.12.2002 has allowed the application (Annexure P-1) and permitted the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration on or before 16.01.2003. The same has, accordingly, been deposited on 07.01.2003 as stated by the counsel for respondents. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioner relying on three judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1954 Supreme Court 50 titled as “Naguba Appa Vs. Namdev”, (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 403 titled as “Johri Singh Vs. Sukh Pal Singh and others” and AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1957 titled as “Sulleh Singh and others Vs. Sohan Lal and another” and a judgment of this Court in AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 342 titled as Parmeshri Vs. Namdev”, (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 403 titled as “Johri Singh Vs. Sukh Pal Singh and others” and AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1957 titled as “Sulleh Singh and others Vs. Sohan Lal and another” and a judgment of this Court in AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 342 titled as Parmeshri Vs. Naurata contended that time for deposit of balance sale consideration should not have been extended. 8. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for respondents relying on various judgments of this Court in “Kedar Nath and others vs. Kanwal Bhatia” 1998(1) PLR 230, “Mohinder Singh vs. Satpal Singh 2010(4) CivCC 547 , Darshan Gir Vs. Surjit Kaur 2001(1) RCR (Civil) 371, Mohinder Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh 1997 (1) PLR 73, Sneh Lata Verma Vs. Baldev Raj Monga 1998 (2) PLR 332, Jagan Nath and another Vs. Lekh Ram 2001(1) CurLJ 418 and Gurbachan Singh V. Bachan Singh and others 1997 (1) PLR 355” has contended that time for deposit of balance sale consideration has been rightly extended. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The plaintiffs had contested the suit and first appeal and succeeded in both the Courts below. Consequently, there was no reason for the plaintiffs not to have deposited the balance sale consideration in time stipulated by the lower Appellate Court if they had knowledge of the said stipulation. It is not even the case of the defendant/petitioner that the plaintiffs did not have resources to deposit the requisite amount. 10. In these circumstances, it is manifest that the explanation furnished by the plaintiffs in their application (Annexure P-1) for not depositing the balance sale consideration in stipulated time was satisfactory and has been rightly accepted by the lower Appellate Court. Moreover, time is not the essence of the contract in case of agreement to sell immovable property unless it is so made expressly or by implication by the parties. In the instant case, time was not the essence of the contract. Consequently, if the lower Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in extending the time for deposit of balance sale consideration, the same is not required to be interferred with by this Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. Impugned order of the lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error. 11. Consequently, if the lower Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in extending the time for deposit of balance sale consideration, the same is not required to be interferred with by this Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. Impugned order of the lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error. 11. Judgments cited by learned Senior counsel for the respondents mentioned hereinbefore, tilt in favour of the extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration in suits for specific performance of agreement to sell. It has been laid down that Courts should be liberal in extending the time and right of decree-holders should not be defeated by denying extension of time. 12. On the other hand, judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. All the three judgments of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court cited by counsel for the petitioner pertain to extension of time for deposit of pre-emption money in pre-emption suits. However, right of pre-emption has been held to be a piratical right and, therefore, Courts do not lean in favour of the preemptors. Consequently, said judgments declining to extend time for deposit of pre-emption money are not applicable to the instant case relating to specific performance of agreement. On the other hand, when suit for specific performance of agreement has been decreed, the plaintiff should not be denied the fruits of the decree on hyper-technical ground and Courts would lean in favour of decree holders in such cases for extending time to deposit the balance sale consideration. Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Parmeshri (supra) cited by counsel for petitioner is also not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In that case, there was conditional compromise decree under which amount had to be paid in instalments and since condition of compromise was not complied with, the time could not have been extended in that case by the Court. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merits in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ---------------------