C.R.No.992 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.992 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.3.2010 J.B.Sharma .....Petitioner vs. Makhan Lal and company Privated Ltd. and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Manoj Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 23.1.2010 whereby in a suit for specific performance plaintiff has been directed to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court. It is not in dispute that the alleged order is liable to be set aside in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Dharam Pal Singh v. AjitSingh and others (C.R.No.7089 of 2009 decided on 22.12.2009) and M/s Living Point Sales Pvt.Ltd. v. Smt.Santosh Nagpal (C.R.No. 25 of 2010 decided on 8.2.2010) wherein it has been observed as under:- “ In a suit for possession by specific performance of sale of immovable property, 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 C.R.No.992 of 2010 (O&M) 2 and willing to pay the balance amount. Raising of such a legally imperative plea will not render the 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 procedure. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 23.1.2010 is set aside March 18, 2010 rk ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge.