C.R.No.7775 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7775 of 2011 Date of decision: 15.12.2011 Jagmohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gurmeet Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Pravindra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The defendant-petitioner has impugned order dated 25.11.2011, Annexure P.3 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ropar, whereby the trial court while adjourning the case has awaited for the report of the Local Commissioner. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. A suit was filed by the plaintiff- respondents against the petitioner-defendant for specific performance of agreement dated 1.12.2010 for sale of the suit land. The parties to the litigation compromised the dispute whereby the defendant-petitioner had agreed for execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents as is discernible from the order dated 11.11.2011, Annexure P.2 attached by the defendant-petitioner. His grievance was that the plaintiff-respondents were to deposit the remaining amount by 24.11.2011 and sale deed was to be executed thereupon. He contended that the plaintiff-respondents having failed to deposit the balance sale consideration by 24.11.2011, the order could not be passed on 25.11.2011 for awaiting the report of the Local 1 C.R.No.7775 of 2011 Commissioner with respect to execution of sale deed. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 4. The order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the trial court reads as under:- “25.11.2011 Present: Counsel for the parties. File taken up today as 24.11.2011 was holiday. Report of Local Commissioner not received. The same be awaited till 20.12.2011. Sd/- Mandeep Kaur Bedi, CJM Ropar” 5. From the aforesaid order, it cannot be discerned that there was any plea taken by the petitioner before the executing Court as has been sought to be projected before this Court relating to deposit of the amount. The order dated 25.11.2011 was passed only to await for the report of the Local Commissioner till 20.12.2011. In these circumstances, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 6. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. December 15, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 2