C. R. No. 548 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 548 of 2009 Date of Decision : December 22, 2009 Mangat Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Nirmal Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Judgment-debtor Mangat Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.04.2006 (Annexure P-5), passed by Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahr. Respondent Nirmal Singh filed suit against the petitioner for possession of suit property by specific performance of sale agreement dated 31.10.1996. The said suit was disposed of vide judgment (Annexure P-1) and decree dated 02.11.2001. Before passing of said judgment, on 02.11.2001, counsel for the parties made statement in the trial court. The suit was accordingly decreed for recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- with proportionate cost. The defendant was to deposit the decretal amount C. R. No. 548 of 2009 2 within two months, failing which the suit would be deemed to have been decreed for relief of specific performance of the agreement. The petitioner herein filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court, but the appeal was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr, vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the respondent- decree holder filed execution petition on 23.12.2002. During pendency of the execution petition, petitioner herein filed application for extension of time to deposit the decretal amount till 24.07.2004, the date on which the petitioner deposited the decretal amount. The said application has been dismissed by the Executing Court by passing impugned order dated 08.04.2006 (Annexure P-5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the amount stands deposited by the petitioner on 24.07.2004 and therefore, the Executing Court should have granted extension of time for deposit of amount till said date of deposit. It was also pointed out that the aforesaid execution petition was dismissed as unsatisfied vide order dated 18.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) because no one appeared for the decree holder-respondent before the Executing Court. It was also pointed out that the subsequent execution petition filed by respondent-decree holder was also dismissed as unsatisfied vide order dated 14.06.2008, as reproduced in paragraph 5 of the revision petition. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that no justification was made out for grant of extension of time to the petitioner. It was pointed out that the decree holder-plaintiff, as a matter of concession, had agreed that if the defendant-judgment debtor paid the amount of Rs.1,80,000, the plaintiff would forego his claim for specific performance of the agreement, but inspite thereof, the defendant-judgment debtor did not deposit the decretal amount of Rs.1,80,000/- with C. R. No. 548 of 2009 3 proportionate cost within the stipulated period of two months granted by the trial court. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The instant revision petition is completely frivolous and meritless and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost to curb such false litigation, which is multiplying because of liberal approach of the Courts. As noticed herein above, the petitioner was granted two months' time to deposit the decretal amount, vide judgment and decree dated 02.11.2001. Accordingly, the amount had to be deposited till 02.01.2002, but the petitioner deposited the amount on 24.07.2004 i.e. after delay of more than 2½ years. Not only that, even appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was dismissed on 27.11.2002, but even thereafter, the petitioner did not deposit the amount within reasonable period, which could at the most, be said to be two months, which has been stipulated by the trial court. However, even after judgment of the Appellate Court, the petitioner took another 20 months for depositing the decretal amount. No valid justification has been advanced by the petitioner for the aforesaid inordinate delay. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the ground pleaded by the petitioner in application for extension of time moved in the Executing Court was that the judgment debtor (petitioner herein) remained involved in litigation and therefore, he could not contact his lawyer. However, admittedly, the petitioner did not prefer any second appeal in the case, nor any document was produced on record to substantiate the aforesaid ground pleaded in the application before the Executing Court. Moreover, if the petitioner remained busy in litigation, he must have remained in contact with his lawyer. In addition to the aforesaid, in the instant revision petition, the petitioner has come out with an altogether new ground. It has been alleged in paragraph 6 of the revision petition that due to health problems and certain unavoidable circumstances (not pleaded), the petitioner could not contact his counsel to deposit the decretal amount within the stipulated C. R. No. 548 of 2009 4 period. However, no such ground was taken in the application for extension of time moved before the Executing Court. There is also no material on record to substantiate the plea, now taken in the instant revision petition. Moreover, the petitioner had filed first appeal against the judgment of the trial court. For filing the said appeal and for pursuing the same, the petitioner remained in contact with his counsel. So, the ground pleaded in the application before the Executing Court as well as in the instant civil revision petition is absolutely false. It also deserves to be noticed that impugned order of the Executing Court is dated 08.04.2006, whereas the instant revision petition was filed on 30.01.2009 i.e. more than 02 year and 09 months after passing of the impugned order. There is no explanation for this inordinate and long delay and consequently, the revision petition is liable to dismissal even on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner did not even obtain certified copy of the impugned order, which could have explained delay of some days. It is correct that no limitation period may have been prescribed for preferring petition under Article 227of the Constitution of India, but there is limitation period of 90 days for preferring civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same could also be taken to be reasonable period, during which petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should have been moved. In any case, the delay of more than 02 years and 09 months is certainly a long delay extending much beyond whatever could be the reasonable period for preferring the revision petition. Even on merits, the revision petition is completely frivolous and meritless. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant revision petition is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/-. December 22, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE