HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 3.6.1993 whereby the objections and the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") filed by the respondent were accepted and the execution petition was dismissed.
(2.) A decree for specific performance of agreement dated 14.6.1989 was passed by the learned trial Court on 2.4.1990 on the basis of settlement between the parties. As per terms of the settlement, the plaintiff petitioner was to deposit the balance sale consideration amounting to Rs. 75,000/- within seven days. The petitioner has moved an application on 9.4.1990 for extension of time in deposit of the balance sale consideration which was allowed by the learned trial Court on 16.4.1990. The balance sale consideration has been deposited on 17.4.1990. However, the learned Executing Court accepted the objections dated 2.4.1990 as well as the application under Section 28 of the Act filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor, consequently the decree for specific performance of the agreement is found to be not executable. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, in respect of the order passed on application under Section 28 of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed on 10.9.1993 as not maintainable. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Executing Court on objection dated 2.4.1990 by way of revision petition even before the decision by the learned Additional District Judge in appeal against the order passed on application under Section 28 of the Act. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner having failed to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 10.9.1993, the present petition is not maintainable as a contradictory order has been passed in respect of the objection and the application and, therefore, such order having attained finality on application under Section 28 of the Act, the revision petition will not be maintainable.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the said objection is without any merit. The objections to the execution of the decree filed by the respondent and application under Section 28 of the Act are on the similar lines and, in fact, it was so found by the learned Executing Court on 4.1.1992 on the joint statement of the judgment debtor and the decree holder. Since the objections and the application are based on similar facts and the appeal having been dismissed as not maintainable, the revision wherein the challenge has been made to order dated 3.6.1993 is maintainable. The argument that separate revision was required to be filed in respect of an order passed under Section 29 of the Act is only in respect of the procedure and that again would not be maintainable as the objections and the application, in fact, are to the same effect and decided by a common order.;