Civil Revision No.249 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.249 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:14.05.2010 Desh Raj .... petitioner Versus Sh.Bhagwat Dayal & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 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.P.L.Verma,Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite service. Challenge is to the order dated 08.01.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Gurgaon, whereby after framing issues, the trial Court directed the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration in fix deposit(F.D.R) in a suit for specific performance of contract of sale. While passing the impugned order, it is observed that since the petitioner-plaintiff was ready and showing willingness to perform his part of the contract, so, he must deposit the balance sale consideration. In a suit for possession by specific performance of sale of immovable property, it is duty case 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 and willing to pay the balance amount. Civil Revision No.249 of 2010(O & M) 2 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 procedural. This Court in an order dated 21.01.2009 passed in Civil Revision No.7737 of 2009 in a similar matter observed that no such direction can be passed by the Civil Court at this stage and revision petition was accepted and a similar order which was under challenge was set aside. In view of the above, the present revision petition is accepted. The order under challenge to the extent directing the petitioner- plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration, is hereby set aside. Petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 14.05.2010. neenu