Civil Revision No. 5958 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5958 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 27th,2011 Kabal Singh .... Petitioner Versus Paramjit Kaur .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by Kabal singh, Judgment Debtor (JD) under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure P4) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mukerian, vide which the objections of the petitioner have been dismissed. In the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 26.12.2006, with regard to a shop situated in the abadi of village Galhrian, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, ex-parte decree was passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya on 15.4.2008 (Annexure P1). Vide the said judgment and decree, the defendant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff after executing a sale deed in respect of the shop in question, in favour of the plaintiff on receipt Civil Revision No. 5958 of 2011 2 .. of balance consideration of Rs.88,000/- within a period of 60 days from the date of decree, failing which the plaintiff will be at liberty to get the sale deed executed and take possession from the defendant through competent court of law. In the objections filed by the Judgment Debtor (JD), he had claimed that he was directed to hand over vacant possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff after executing the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.88,000/- within 60 days from the date of decree. According to him, the Decree Holder (DH) failed to comply with the terms of the decree dated 15.4.2008 and consequently, the execution is liable to be dismissed. It is his plea that the DH had not deposited the amount of Rs.88,000/- within a period of 60 days from the date of decree as per the directions of the trial court contained in the judgment and decree dated 15.4.2008. On the contrary, the decree holder claimed that vide judgment and decree, the defendant was directed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.88,000/- from the plaintiff, but the defendant failed to do so. According to him, instead, he filed an appeal against the judgment and decree and the same was dismissed on 12.11.2009. According to him, thereafter, the DH filed this execution application and deposited the balance sale consideration on 8.3.2010. According to him, the J.D. in place of accepting Rs. 88,000/-, had filed objections. It was claimed that the DH had shown his bonafides in the matter and he is entitled to Civil Revision No. 5958 of 2011 3 .. execution of the decree. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the objection petition vide the impugned order, aggrieved by which, the JD has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Satbir Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decree holder has failed to comply with the directions of the court given vide judgment and decree dated 15.4.2008. According to him, the time given for deposit of the balance sale consideration could only be enlarged by the court under the provisions of section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure which also could not be enlarged for a period of more than 30 days. According to him, the period taken here by the DH in depositing the amount is much more than that and, therefore, the decree became unexecutable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the decree holder had even played trick with the court by claiming that the balance sale consideration had been deposited before the filing of the application for execution, whereas he has claimed the same to have been deposited only on 8.3.2010. He has supported his submissions with the ratio of a decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in V.S.Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Vs. C.Alagappan and another 1994 (4) SCC 702. A perusal of the copies of judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure Civil Revision No. 5958 of 2011 4 .. P1) would reveal that the period of 60 days was not given to the DH to deposit the balance sale consideration. It was the time given by the court to the JD to execute the sale deed on receipt of balance of sale consideration. In place of receiving the balance sale consideration and executing the sale deed within this period, he had filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.4.2008. His appeal had been dismissed for default of appearance on 12.11.2009 and consequently, the decree holder filed execution application, believing that the JD was not in a mood to execute the sale deed. The fact mentioned in the execution application cannot be said to be designed to mislead the executing court. The execution application has been filed on a proforma where the date of challan for deposit of balance sale consideration is kept blank, which shows that no such amount had been deposited before filing the execution application. Since the time of 60 days was not fixed by the trial court for the DH to deposit the amount, there was no question of getting it enlarged under the provisions of section 148 CPC. It is made very clear in V.S.Palanichamy Chettiar Firm's case (supra) that the suit for specific performance was decreed there with a direction to the plaintiff to deposit the amount of consideration within the specified time limit, which is not here in the case before me. This variance in facts makes the entire difference and shows that the ratio of the above said case has no application to the facts of this case. Civil Revision No. 5958 of 2011 5 .. For these reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by learned trial court. The revision petition is, therefore, found to have no merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 27th , 2011 som