Civil Revision No.888 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.888 of 2010 Date of Decision:28.06.2010 Narender Aggarwal & Ors. ....petitioners Versus Raj Pal & 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.N.D.Achint,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Gaurav Jain, Advocate for Mr.Ashit Jain, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge(Senior Division), Gurgaon, whereby, after framing issues, the trial Court directed the petitioners-plaintiffs 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 observed that since the petitioners-plaintiffs were ready and showing willingness to perform their part of the contract, so, they must deposit the balance sale consideration. 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 and willing to pay the balance amount. Raising of such a legally imperative plea will not render the plaintiff to be Civil Revision No.888 of 2010 2 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 petitioners- plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration is hereby set aside. Petition disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.06.2010 neenu