Civil Revision No.3978 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: July 29, 2008 Udaivir & others .....Petitioners VERSUS Sukhvir & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have been issued a notice under Order 21 Rule 31 CPC asking them to show cause as to why they should not be sent to the civil imprisonment for non-compliance of decree of specific performance of contract. They have further been directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the decree-holder within a period of one month from the date of the order. The present revision petition has been filed by them to impugn the said order. The facts, in brief, are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract on the Civil Revision No.3978 of 2008 : 2 : basis of an agreement to sell dated 12.3.1999. This agreement was executed by late father of the petitioners, namely, Shri Jaipal Singh. The petitioners were minor at the time of institution of the said civil suit and were accordingly impleaded through their mother and natural guardian Smt.Sameela, who had also been impleaded as defendant independently being wife of late Jaipal Singh. During the pendency of the suit, Smt.Sameela entered into a compromise with the respondents and made a statement that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract by executing the sale deed. She also agreed to apply for permission to sell the property on behalf of the minors within one week from the date she made the said statement. The suit was accordingly decreed on 18.4.2001. In terms of the judgment and decree, the judgment-debtors, who were major, executed the sale deed on 27.11.2002 qua their shares. Mother of the petitioners then filed an application under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act seeking permission to sell the land belonging to the petitioners. On 13.5.2002, Civil Judge granted the permission to sell the shares of the minor-petitioners. In addition, she was further directed to furnish indemnity bond in the sum of Rs.5.00 lacs with one surety in the like amount. Permission to sell the share of petitioner No.3 was granted to Smt.Shiksh widow of Soran Singh, subject to furnishing indemnity bond to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs. The mother of the petitioners subsequently had entered into a fresh agreement dated 27.11.2002 with respondent No.1 qua the share of the petitioners. This share of the petitioners was also subject matter of the judgment and decree dated 18.3.2001, referred to above. Civil Revision No.3978 of 2008 : 3 : When the sale deed on behalf of the minors was not executed, the respondent/decree-holders filed an execution petition for registration of the sale deed qua the share of the minors. Notice was issued to the petitioners, who, by now had acquired majority. They put in appearance and filed objections to the said petition. These objections have been dismissed and directions as noticed issued, which are now impugned through the present revision petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners very vehemently submitted that the share of the minors could not have been agreed to be sold by the mother, unless the permission of the court was granted for this purpose. Perhaps the counsel is ignoring the fact that the mother never agreed to sell the land of the minor petitioners, but only agreed to seek permission for selling the same. When his attention was drawn to the fact that permission to sell the land was sought and granted by the court to Smt.Sameela, mother of the petitioners, the counsel changed track and submitted that this was subject to the condition of furnishing indemnity bond in the sum of Rs.5.00 lacs with one surety of the like amount, which Smt.Sameela failed to furnish. The counsel accordingly pleads that the sale deed cannot be executed on behalf of the minor petitioners as the condition imposed by the court was not followed or adhered to. The submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners are misconstrued and hence unacceptable. The petitioners were minors at the time when the suit was decreed and had been Civil Revision No.3978 of 2008 : 4 : impleaded through their mother Smt.Sameela, who was impleaded as a defendant in her individual capacity as well. She had compromised the suit leading to the decree and the judgment. She had already executed sale deed in respect of her share. She had also undertaken to obtain permission to execute sale of the share of the minor petitioners, which was subsequently granted. Apparently she is now backing out of this compromise and intentionally is not furnishing the indemnity bond in order to avoid execution of the sale deed in respect of the share of the minors. This obviously is in connivance of the petitioners, who are now major and appear to be avoiding the execution of the sale deed. The stand taken by the petitioners that she had entered into a fresh agreement with respondent No.1 after the suit was decreed to show that the execution petition shall stand satisfied, apparently is also misconceived. The submission that before entering into compromise on behalf of the minors, the mother had not sought permission of the trial court is again misplaced as she never agreed to sell their share but only made statement that she would apply for permission to sell the share of the minors. This permission, as noticed above, was sought and granted subject to conditions as noticed. The compromise reached leading to judgment and decree dated 18.4.2001 regarding the share of the minors, was only to the extent that mother of the petitioners would apply for permission to sell the property. Thus, this agreement was not to sell the property of the minors. If the permission, as was sought subsequently by the mother of the petitioners, had been declined, obviously the same could not Civil Revision No.3978 of 2008 : 5 : have been ordered or execution of the decree to that an extent was not possible or permissible. The whole line of submission as made in terms of Order 32 Rule 7(1) CPC is on the basis that mother of the petitioners had entered into an agreement to sell the property of the minors. There is a fallacy in the argument and the submission so made. No agreement to sell the property of the minors was entered into by the mother of the petitioners. She had only agreed to apply for permission to sell the property of a minor, which was subsequently granted, but is now being not honoured by not adhering to the conditions imposed by the court while granting such permission. The Executing Court has, thus, rightly directed the petitioners to execute the sale deed within a period of one month. It may be significant to notice that the petitioners are now major. The Executing Court is justified in directing the petitioners to register the sale deed. The petitioners, however, may not be made liable for action for sending them to civil prison. The petitioners would be at liberty to challenge that part of the order, if pursuant to the show cause notice issued to them, any action is taken against them for sending them to civil imprisonment for non-compliance of the decree of the specific performance of the contract. The revision petition is dismissed. July 29, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE