Decided on November 15,2002

Bhajan Singh Alias Harbhajan Singh Respondents


- (1.)LEAVE to appeal is granted. The counsel for the parties are finally heard on merit of the case.
(2.)THE appellant obtained a decree of specific performance of the suit property against the respondent. The terms of the decree read thus:
"The suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dtd. 16/5/1987 of the land measuring 30 kanals 14 marlas is decreed with costs. The defendant is ordered to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance consideration. Registration charge has to be paid by the plaintiff. In case the defendant fails to execute the sale deed within one month from the date of decree in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the sale deed executed in execution of the decree on depositing balance consideration charges through court."

When the appellant as decree -holder sought execution of the above decree through court, the respondent as judgment -debtor objected to the execution stating that in terms of the decree (abovequoted) the decree -holder failed to tender the sale price to the judgment -debtor within a period of one month. The executing court dismissed the objection of the judgment -debtor. Aggrieved thereby the judgment -debtor preferred civil revision petition under Rule 115 C.P.C. to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

(3.)THE High Court allowed the revision1 preferred by the judgment - debtor by construing the decree to have contained a requirement on the part of the decree -holder to pay or tender the sale price to the judgment -debtor within a period of one month. The High Court also observed that the decree passed on 18/1/1991 is sought to be executed in the year 1993 and there is thus no equity in favour of the decree -holder to permit him to deposit the balance sale consideration in the year 1995 and obtain registered conveyance of the suit land from the judgment -debtor. The High Court further held1 that in such circumstances, the defendant could have been allowed to rescind the contract of sale of the property.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.