Civil Revision No. 4597 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4597 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.8.2009 Vakil Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Sheo Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri Manish Soni, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 21.5.2009, whereby the warrants of possession of the land in question were ordered to be issued and the order dated 21.7.2009, whereby an application for stay of execution of the decree and recall of the warrants of possession was dismissed. The plaintiff-decree holders (respondent No.1, 2 and 3) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.5.1986. The said suit was decreed on 16.3.1998. The plaintiffs were granted time to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- on or before 30.6.1998. However, before the last date for deposit of the balance sale consideration, in an appeal filed by defendant Nos.2 to 6, execution of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was stayed by the learned first Appellate Court on 29.5.1998. The said appeal was dismissed on Civil Revision No. 4597 of 2009 (2) 18.10.2002. On an application dated 11.11.2002 filed by the decree holders, the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- was permitted to be deposited on 22.11.2002 and in pursuance of the said deposit on 25.11.2002 the sale deed was executed on 1.4.2003. The learned Executing Court vide its order dated 21.5.2009, did not find any merit in the objection raised by the judgment debtor that the deposit of Rs.30,000/- beyond the period of 30.6.1998 renders the decree as inexecutable. It was found that the Appellate Court has stayed the execution of the decree and after the dismissal of the appeal, an application filed by the decree holder amounts to extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration. Therefore, the trial Court was perfectly justified in law in permitting the deposit of balance sale consideration. Reliance was placed upon Md. Alimuddin v. Waizudding & Anr., 1997(1) Apex Court Journal 288 (SC); Chithambaran Ponnappan v. Viswambaran and another, AIR 2001 Kerala 205 and K. Kalpana Sarawati v. P.S.S. Chettiar, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 512. Subsequently, an application filed by the petitioner to withdraw the warrant of possession has been dismissed, as mentioned above vide order dated 21.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that since the specific time was granted by the learned trial Court to deposit the balance sale consideration and the plaintiffs have admittedly not deposited the balance sale consideration within the time so granted, the order passed by the Court permitting deposit of the balance sale consideration on 11.11.2002 amounts to amendment in the decree and such amendment could not have been allowed by the Executing Court. Reference is made to a Single Bench Judgment of this Court in Resham Singh and others v. Civil Revision No. 4597 of 2009 (3) Manmohan Singh Kent and others, 1985 PLR 278. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Though the trial Court has granted time to deposit the balance sale consideration on or before 30.6.1998, but the fact remains that before the stipulated date, there was an appeal filed by the defendants and there was stay of the execution of the decree. With the dismissal of appeal by the first Appellate Court, the decree passed by the learned first trial Court merged with the decree passed by the Appellate Court. No time was granted by the Appellate Court to deposit the balance sale consideration. The time fixed by the trial Court to deposit the balance sale consideration loses its effect on account of merger of the decree. Therefore, the application filed by the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration on 11.11.2002 i.e., within 30 days of the decision of appeal, was validly entertained. In the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no appeal filed. In the absence of any appeal, any change in the terms of the decree will of course amount to the amendment in decree. However, such is not the position in the instant case. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Executing Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 17-08-2009 ds