Civil Revision No.4735 of 2010 (O & M ) and Civil Revision No.6983 of 2010 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 09, 2011. Civil Revision No.4735 of 2010 (O & M ) Krishan Kumar ….Petitioner Versus Nirmala Devi and others ..Respondents Civil Revision No.6983 of 2010 (O & M ) Krishan Kumar ….Petitioner Versus Jagdish Chander and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Revision No.4735 of 2010 (O & M ) and Civil Revision No.6983 of 2010 (O & M ) This order will dispose of Civil Revision No.4735 of 2010 and Civil Revision No.6983 of 2010 filed by petitioner Krishan Kumar as these are between the same parties and the land in dispute is also the same. Petitioner Krishan Kumar along with his brother Deepak Kumar filed Civil Suit No.73 of 2008 for specific performance of agreement dated 12.9.1991 in respect of land measuring 12 Kanals 1 Marla (hereinafter referred to as `the suit land’) against the respondents herein, who filed Civil Suit No.174 of 2007 against petitioner Krishan Kumar for permanent injunction restraining him (Krishan Kumar) from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land. In the civil suit filed by petitioner Krishan Kumar and his brother Deepak Kumar, they filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’) restraining the respondents herein from interfering in their possession over the suit land and from alienating the suit land during the pendency of the suit. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. This order of the trial Court was challenged by petitioner Krishan Kumar and his brother Deepak Kumar by filing an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was dismissed. Petitioner Krishan Kumar has challenged these orders of the Courts below by filing Civil Revision No.4735 of 2010. In civil suit filed by the respondents herein against petitioner Krishan Kumar for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land, they also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code restraining the petitioner from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. This application of the respondents was allowed by the trial Court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner Civil Revision No.4735 of 2010 (O & M ) and Civil Revision No.6983 of 2010 (O & M ) against this order of the trial Court was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Petitioner Krishan Kumar has challenged these orders of the Courts below by filing Civil Revision No.6983 of 2010. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. As per the revenue record, the respondents are in possession of the suit land. No doubt agreement to sell was executed in favour of the petitioner by Phool Singh general attorney of the respondents herein on 12.9.1991 and as per terms and conditions of the said agreement, the sale deed was to be executed and got registered within six months after making payment of the remaining amount of Rs.70,000/- as out of the total sale consideration of Rs.1,38,000/- a sum of Rs.68,000/- had been paid as earnest money, but the petitioner failed to perform his part of the agreement. The petitioner claimed that possession of the suit land was delivered to him on 26.7.1994 in terms of the subsequent writing of even date when the entire sale consideration had been paid to the vendors. However, neither the payment of the amount has been mentioned in the writing dated 26.7.1994 nor there is any stipulation regarding handing over of possession of the suit land to the petitioner. The revenue record, on the contrary, shows possession of the respondents herein over the suit land. In fact, the respondents herein had served a legal notice dated 26.11.1993 upon the petitioner thereby calling upon him to make payment of the remaining sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed in his favour within fifteen days failing which his earnest money would be forfeited. Even then the Civil Revision No.4735 of 2010 (O & M ) and Civil Revision No.6983 of 2010 (O & M ) petitioner failed to perform his part of the agreement. The suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.9.1991 was filed by the petitioner and his brother Deepak Kumar against the respondents herein on 27.2.2008 i.e after more than sixteen years of the agreement and when we count from the date of subsequent writing i.e from 26.7.1994, after more than thirteen and a half years. It is not comprehensible as to what prevented the petitioner from filing the said suit for specific performance within a reasonable period so as to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement. In these circumstances, the petitioner did not have a prima facie case in his favour nor balance of convenience lied in his favour. Therefore, both the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned orders. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in both these revision petitions, which are hereby dismissed. It is made clear that anything said while deciding these revisions petitions will not influence the trial Court while deciding the respective civil suits of the parties. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the paper book of Civil Revision No.6983 of 2010. Dated: March 09,2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE