CR No.4892 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4892 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: February 16, 2010. Jeet Ram (through LRs) ...Petitioner v. Ram Sarup & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri M.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri A.S. Syan, Advocate, for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in this petition, a decree was passed in favour of the respondents vide judgment dated 4.3.2002 whereby the petitioner was directed to execute the sale deed as per the agreement dated 25.6.1996 in favour of the respondents after receiving the balance sale consideration within three months from the date of the judgment and decree and to hand over vacant possession of the disputed property to the respondents. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2003, however, the decree of the trial court was modified for joint possession. A regular second appeal No.757 of 2004 filed by the petitioner CR No.4892 of 2008 -: 2 :- was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 1.3.2004. The respondents filed execution application which was registered on 3.5.2004. The executing court directed the decree holders/respondents to deposit the balance sale consideration and fixed the case for 16.8.2004. The decree holder moved an application on 5.8.2004 for deposit of the balance sale consideration and the executing court ordered deposit of the sale consideration at his own responsibility. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid amount of balance sale consideration stood deposited on 15.10.2004. Thereafter, petitioners filed objections submitting that the respondents were not entitled to execute the decree in question as they have failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period as granted by the court and, thus, the petitioners were entitled to get the contract rescinded and the execution application was liable to be dismissed. The executing court vide impugned order dated 9.8.2008 dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner observing that the court had already allowed the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration and in view of the judgment in Amar Nath Jain v. Ram Parkash Dhir, 1987(1) PLR 490, the extension of period is presumed to have been granted to the decree holder and rejected the objections. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as the executing court had no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree and had no jurisdiction to extend the period of making the deposit of the balance sale consideration. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CR No.4892 of 2008 -: 3 :- Chanda v. Rattni & Anr., 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 534. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order and has submitted that the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, and since the decree holder was allowed to deposit the balance amount, it will be presumed that time was extended and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the present petition. It is not in dispute that originally the decree holder had not deposited the amount of balance sale consideration within the stipulated period of three months, however, the same was deposited under the orders of the court. Moreover, the decree holder never filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for rescission of the contract in question and even the objections were filed by the petitioner to the execution application only after the balance sale consideration was deposited by the respondent/decree holder under the orders of the court. In Amar Nath Jain's case (supra), this court held that if the amount was not deposited within the stipulated time and the decree holder was allowed to deposit the same by executing court, extension for depositing the same will be presumed. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to controvert the aforesaid ratio of law as envisaged in Amar Nath Jain's case. Even in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chanda's case (supra), which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held that the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and court cannot ordinarily annul the CR No.4892 of 2008 -: 4 :- decree once passed by it. Although the power to annul the decree exists, yet the Section 28 of the Act provides for complete relief to both the parties in terms of the decree. The court does not cease to have the power to extend the time even though the trial court had earlier directed in the decree that payment of balance price to be made by certain date and on failure suit to stand dismissed. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this petition. Dismissed. February 16, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge