Civil Revision No. 1568 of 2010 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH . Civil Revision No. 1568 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.03.2010. Vijay Pal Yadav ...... Petitioner Versus Rajender and others ........ Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated January 21st, 2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, whereby, the trial Court directed the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration in fix deposit (F.D.R.) in suit for specific performance of contract of sale. While passing the impugned order, it observed that since the petitioner-plaintiff was ready and showing willingness to perform his part of the contract so, he must deposit the balance sale consideration. 2. On January 25th, 2009, this Court while deciding Civil Revision No. 7752 of 2009 titled M/s Kapeeshwar Estates Pvt. Limited Vs. Smt. Murti Devi and others, observed as under :- “ In a suit for possession by specific performance of sale of immovable properly, it is a duty cast by the statute on the plaintiff to plead and prove that he/she was always ready and willing to perform his/her part of the contract and is still ready and willing to pay the balance amount. Raising of such a legally imperative plea will not render the Civil Revision No. 1568 of 2010 2 ... plaintiff to be liable to deposit the balance amount during the pendency of the suit. Neither there is any provision in law to require the plaintiff to deposit the balance during pendency of suit nor a direction to that effect shall sub-serve the cause of justice and fair play. The order is product of the own fertile but erroneous hypothesis of the trial Judge than being a requirement of law, substantial or even procedural.” 3. The same view was taken by this Court in Dharam Pal Singh vs. Ajit Singh, Civil Revision No. 7089 of 2009, decided on December 22nd, 2009. 4. In view of above, the revision petition is accepted. The order under challenge to the extent directing the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration, are hereby set-aside. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 12.03.2010. som