CR No.2340 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2340 of 2009 Date of decision : 16-11-2009 Bhalinder Singh and others ....Petitioners VERSUS Narinder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents no.1 to 5. SURYA KANT J.(Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order datd 15.04.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rajpura whereby, on agreed terms, the respondents-defendants were directed to get the sale deed executed and registered on 30.04.2009 on receiving the balance sale consideration from the petitioner- plaintiffs in terms of the 'agreement to sell' dated 1.03.2006. The petitioner-plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of 'agreement to sell' dated 1.03.2006 in respect of agriculture land measuring 78 Bighas situated at Village Dhindsa, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. It is averred by them in the CR No.2340 of 2009 -2- plaint that the respondents-defendants agreed to sell the above stated land on payment of total sale consideration of Rs.7 Crores 80 Lacs after adjusting the earnest money of Rs.1 Crore 71 Lacs already paid to them at the time of execution of the 'agreement to sell', dated 10.3.2006. It was during the pendency of the civil suit that the trial court passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2009 which reads as follows:- “Heard. Plaintiff is seeking relief by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1.3.2006 pertaining to the suit land fully mention in the head note of plaint. Defendant No.2 along with counsel for defendants Shri R.K. Joshi Advocate on 19.3.2009 have made a statement which was recorded separately to the effect that they are ready to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of agreement in terms of agreement to sell dated 1.3.2006. Under the circumstances, defendants are directed to get the sale deed executed and registered on 30.4.2009 on receiving the balance sale consideration in terms of agreement dated 1.3.2006. Report be awaited till 1.6.2009.” On a plain reading of the impugned order, it is apparent that not only the impugned order is virtually a consent order, it does not adversely affect the petitioner-plaintiffs at all. The defendant- respondents conceded the relief sought in the civil suit and agreed to execute the sale deed, provided that the balance sale consideration was paid to them. The admitted facts are that the petitioner-plaintiffs themselves failed to arrange the sufficient funds and due to their failure to pay the balance sale consideration, the sale deed could not CR No.2340 of 2009 -3- be executed or registered on 30.04.2009. The petitioners have further sought extension of period of six months to enable them to arrange the funds. Even that period has also expired during the pendency of this revision petition. In any case, unless the respondents agree, this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction cannot force the respondents, contrary to agreed terms and conditions of contract, to extend the period for execution of the sale deed. No interference with the impugned order is called for. Dismissed. The records be sent back. (SURYA KANT) 16.11.2009 JUDGE manju