IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 940 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 20, 2008 Baldev Singh and others ............Petitioners VERSUS Alka Chhura ................Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the respondent. ** RANJIT SINGH J.(Oral) The petitioners, who are legal representatives of judgment debtor, Dalip Singh, have filed this revision petition impugning the orders dated 8.1.2007 and 12.2.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala whereby the objections filed by the petitioner No.1 stand dismissed. Civil Revision No. 940 of 2007 { 2 } The facts, in brief, are that respondent-Alka Chhura filed a suit against late Dalip Singh (father of petitioner No.1) seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.11.2000 in regard to property measuring 6 Kanals and 8 Marlas situated in village Machhi Joa, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. This suit was decreed by the additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Sultanpur Lodhi, which was taken in appeal by the present petitioners as L.Rs of late Dalip Singh. During the pendency of the appeal the parties reached a compromise and petitioner No.1 made a statement to the effect that he will issue three cheques amounting to Rs.2.60 lacs, drawn at State Bank of Patiala in favour of the decree holder. The decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent was set aside and the suit of the respondent for possession of specific performance of the agreement was dismissed. The judgment passed by the Appellate Court is as under:- “The parties have arrived at a compromise, which is Ex.C1. The statements of the parties, duly identified by their counsel, whose presence has been marked above, have been separately recorded. They have admitted Ex.C1 as correct. Three cheques, in the sum of Rs.2,60,000/- of the State Bank of Patiala, Branch Sultanpur Lodhi, Account No.01170064054, details whereof, are given in Ex.C1, compromise (Razinama), have been issued by Baldev Singh, aforesaid, in favour of Civil Revision No. 940 of 2007 { 3 } the respondent. In view of the statements of the parties, referred to above, and the compromise Ex.C1, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs, and the judgment and the decree of the lower Court are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.11.2000 shall stand dismissed. However, in case, any of the cheques, referred to above, and mentioned in the compromise C1 (Razinama) is dis-honoured, then the appeal of the appellants, shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties shall remain bound by their statements as also the compromise C1, referred to above.” The cheques were issued by the judgment debtor in favour of the decree-holder but these were not honoured when presented. This factual position is not in dispute. Since the Appellate Court had passed the conditional order setting aside the decree in favour of the respondent, as noted above, and the appeal was to be dismissed in case the cheques were dis-honoured, the appeal stood dismissed thereupon. The respondent became eligible to seek execution of the decree passed by the trial Court. An execution application was filed before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sultanpur Lodhi. The petitioner-judgment debtor, however, filed objection pleading that agreement was with late Dalip Singh, Civil Revision No. 940 of 2007 { 4 } father of petitioner No.1. Subsequently, he moved an application for extension of time to deposit the amount under Section 148 C.P.C. This prayer of the petitioner is declined and it is observed that judgment debtor has filed a frivolous application just to gain time. Copy of draft sale deed was already filed and Manoj Kumar, Civil Ahlmad, was thus detailed as a local commissioner to execute the sale deed as per the terms and conditions of the decree passed by the Court. The present revision petition is then filed. When it came up for hearing before this Court on 6.3.2007, counsel for the petitioner took time to ascertain if the petitioners are ready to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the decree-holders, viewing that value of the property has increased many fold during the years that have gone by. On 9.3.2007, counsel representing the petitioner No.1 expressed his readiness to pay a sum of Rs.Ten lacs. Petitioner No.1 requested for three months time to arrange the amount and to pay the same. Further proceedings before the trial Court were then stayed. On 19.7.2007 request for adjournment was made on the ground that the petitioner was unable to arrange the amount as agreed. He was given time till 9.10.2007 to comply with the order dated 9.3.2007. Another request was made for adjournment on 9.10.2007 when the case was adjourned to 10.1.2008. Still no payment was brought or made. On 10.1.2008 the petitioner had brought a sum of Rs.Three lacs. It was further stated that he has not been able to arrange the Civil Revision No. 940 of 2007 { 5 } full amount. Mr.Palli, senior counsel appearing for the respondent, pointed out that the condition imposed by the Court on the petitioner was on its own and it was not accepted by the respondent. As per the counsel, the respondent was not agreeable to accept the amount. That is how the case was adjourned for arguments. Today also the petitioner has not brought the amount of Rs.Ten lacs. To be fair to the petitioner he states that he has brought a sum of Rs.Six lacs. Thus the petitioner is seen to have faulted at every stage of the case. The petitioner was given an opportunity to deposit the amount when he issued the cheques. The order in appeal was made conditional and it was to enure only in case the cheques issued were honoured. The cheques issued by the petitioner admittedly were dishonoured and the appeal automatically stood dismissed. The decree passed in favour of the respondent by the trial Court, thus, got revived, execution of which is now ordered. The petitioner was shown indulgence by this Court also when he was given opportunities to deposit a sum of Rs.Ten lacs. Having agreed to do so, he has not been able to honour the commitment made before this Court. The petitioners can not ask for any thing more. Even on merit there is no case made out in favour of the petitioners. Dismissed. (RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE February 20, 2008 anita Civil Revision No. 940 of 2007 { 6 }