Civil Revision No. 5937 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5937 of 2011 Date of decision. 26.09.2011 Smt. Murti Devi and others .... Petitioners Versus Balbir and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. C.M.No.23595-CII of 2011 Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No. 5937 of 2011 This is a revision petition brought by Smt.Murti Devi and others, the legal representatives of deceased/judgment debtor for setting aside the order dated 18.08.2011 passed by learned Executing Court in execution no.45 of 2010 titled Balbir etc. v. Jaipal (deceased) through legal representatives whereby the objection petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. In the suit brought by Balbir and Ranbir Singh, decree holders for specific performance of the agreement of sale, decree has been passed on 19.02.2010. That decree was sought to be executed by way of execution application mentioned above. The petitioners Civil Revision No. 5937 of 2011 --2-- filed objections under section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for dismissal of the execution proceedings and rescission of agreement dated 30.06.2000 and the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2010. It has been averred by the petitioners that the decree has become inexecutable as the decree holders failed to deposit the balance sale consideration till date despite the fact that the directions were issued by learned Executing Court in this regard. Decree holders are, therefore, shown as not willing to discharge their obligations and they failed to comply with the directions of the court given vide the impugned decree. Hence, the relief was claimed. The application was opposed by the decree holder. It was averred that the judgment debtors did not follow the directions of the court, as a result of which, the decree holder had to file the execution application. It is claimed that the decree holder was ready to deposit the balance sale consideration before the sale deed could be executed through local commission. Judgment debtors filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. Despite the fact that the decree holders were having balance sale consideration with them in the court and were still ready to discharge their obligations, the judgment debtors filed the objections on false and frivolous grounds. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Executing Court found no merit in the objection petition and dismissed the same vide the impugned order. Civil Revision No. 5937 of 2011 --3-- Aggrieved by the said order, the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtors have brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Munish Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the decree holders did not deposit the balance sale consideration within the time allowed by the court. According to him, by their failing to comply with the said directions, the decree holders rendered the agreement of sale liable to be rescinded. I do not find any merit in this submission. The time of two months was given to the judgment debtors to execute the sale deed. In place of executing the sale deed on receiving balance sale consideration, the judgment debtors filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. There is nothing on the record to show that there is any lapse on the part of the decree holders in complying with the terms of the decree. Learned Executing Court has rightly found no merit in the objection petition. Consequently I find no patent illegality in the order passed by learned Executing Court. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 26.09.2011 dinesh