IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2977 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.5.2010 Baljit Kaur ......Petitioner(s) Versus Joginder Kaur @ Sukhjinder Kaur ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiff’s revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 8.4.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Muktsar whereby in an ex parte decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell passed in her favour, time for depositing the balance sale consideration has been extended by two months from the date of order, while observing that no further extension shall be granted. As per averments made in this petition, an ex parte decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell was passed in favour of the petitioner in civil suit No. 48 of 4.3.2009 on 25.2.2010 for possession of suit land on depositing balance sale consideration within one month in the Court from the date of preparation of the copy of the judgment. The petitioner sought extension of time on the ground that in some other litigation vide order dated 18.2.2008, the parties have been directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession and alienation of the suit land and the petitioner is not a party to the said litigation and since on account of the aforesaid stay order, the sale deed in her favour cannot be executed, thus, the time be extended to deposit the balance sale consideration. CR No.2977 of 2010 -2- However, vide impugned order the Court had extended the time for deposit of balance sale consideration for two months only and had observed that no further extension shall be granted, which is allegedly illegal and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record of the revision petition. I find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question on deposit of balance sale consideration within one month from the date of preparation of copy of judgment. No doubt, the Court has the inherent powers to extend the aforesaid time, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be presumed that the decree in civil suit No. 48 of 4.3.2009 will not be executed in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, deposit of the balance sale consideration is pre requisite in such a decree of specific performance. Admittedly, the petitioner has moved an application in the other litigation for her impleadment and thus, she has a remedy to get the stay order vacated in those proceedings. I find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court. Dismissed. May 6, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE