Civil Revision No. 1845 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1845 of 2011 Date of Decision: 18.4.2011 *** Rohtash .. Petitioner Vs. Raj Singh & Ors . .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-JD is aggrieved with the proceedings carried out at the instance of respondent No.1 Raj Singh for execution of judgment and decree dated 25.1.1997 wherein the application of the petitioner-JD for rescinding of the agreement to sell dated 3.6.1985, which had been made the basis of passing of the aforesaid decree, was dismissed; the sale-deed of the land has been got executed through Local Commission and warrants of possession were ordered to be issued. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the civil suit filed by respondent-plaintiff Raj Singh for specific performance was decreed and the plaintiff, as per his own undertaking, was put under obligation to clear the amount of cooperative society, loan of the bank which were due against the defendant and also to clear the encumbrances on the land and then get the sale deed executed in his favour. A liberty was given to the plaintiff to recover the amount from the defendants, exceeding Rs.30,000/- which was the balance consideration, as per the agreement dated 3.6.1985. The said judgment and decree remained intact upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is evident from records that during execution proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act for rescinding of the impugned agreement on the ground that the plaintiff-DH has not done the needful, as has been directed by the trial Court regarding removal of encumbrances from the property, the subject Civil Revision No. 1845 of 2011 2 matter of the agreement. His said application was dismissed vide order dated 4.4.2007. The said order was upheld by this Court by way of an order dated 23.7.2007 passed in civil revision No. 2632 of 2007. The points which have now been agitated by the petitioner have already been adjudicated upon. It has been found that decree holder was not at fault and as such the prayer of the JD that the agreement be rescinded, cannot be accepted. Rather it was held that it was petitioner-JD who was reluctant to perform his part by conveying/ disclosing the amount and the encumbrances on the property, due to which, finding no other way, the decree holder deposited in time, the amount of Rs.30,000/- before the Court, which was the balance amount qua the execution of the sale deed. In these circumstances, the Court below has rightly ordered for issuance of warrants of possession of the suit land after getting the sale-deed of the same executed in favour of the decree-holder, in execution of the decree passed in his favour way back in the year 1997 There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 18 , 2011 Jiten