Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, who are legal representatives of judgment debtor, Dalip Singh, have filed this revision petition impugning the orders dated 8.1.2007 and 12.2.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala whereby the objections filed by the petitioner No. 1 stand dismissed.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent -Alka Chhura filed a suit against late Dalip Singh (father of petitioner No. 1) seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.11.2000 in regard to property measuring 6 Kanals and 8 Marlas situated in village Machhi Joa, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. This suit was decreed by the additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Sultanpur Lodhi, which was taken in appeal by the present petitioners as L.Rs of late Dalip Singh. During the pendency of the appeal the parties reached a compromise and petitioner No. 1 made a statement to the effect that he will issue three cheques amounting to Rs. 2.60 lacs, drawn at State Bank of Patiala in favour of the decree holder. The decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent was set aside and the suit of the respondent for possession of specific performance of the agreement was dismissed. The judgment passed by the Appellate Court is as under: The parties have arrived at a compromise, which is Ex.C1. The statements of the parties, duly identified by their counsel, whose presence has been marked above, have been separately recorded. They have admitted Ex.C1 as correct. Three cheques, in the sum of Rs. 2,60,000/ -of the State Bank of Patiala, Branch Sultanpur Lodhi, Account No. 01170064054, details whereof, are given in Ex.C1, compromise (Razinama), have been issued by Baldev Singh, aforesaid, in favour of the respondent. In view of the statements of the parties, referred to above, and the compromise Ex.C1, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs, and the judgment and the decree of the lower Court are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.11.2000 shall stand dismissed. However, in case, any of the cheques, referred to above, and mentioned in the compromise C1 (Razinama) is dis -honoured, then the appeal of the appellants, shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties shall remain bound by their statements as also the compromise C1, referred to above.
(3.) THE cheques were issued by the judgment debtor in favour of the decree -holder but these were not honoured when presented. This factual position is not in dispute. Since the Appellate Court had passed the conditional order setting aside the decree in favour of the respondent, as noted above, and the appeal was to be dismissed in case the cheques were dis -honoured, the appeal stood dismissed thereupon. The respondent became eligible to seek execution of the decree passed by the trial Court. An execution application was filed before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sultanpur Lodhi. The petitioner -judgment debtor, however, filed objection pleading that agreement was with late Dalip Singh, father of petitioner No. 1. Subsequently, he moved an application for extension of time to deposit the amount under Section 148 C.P.C. This prayer of the petitioner is declined and it is observed that judgment debtor has filed a frivolous application just to gain time. Copy of draft sale deed was already filed and Manoj Kumar, Civil Ahlmad, was thus detailed as a local commissioner to execute the sale deed as per the terms and conditions of the decree passed by the Court.;