CR No.7647 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.7647 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 10.03.2010 **** Sanjiv Kumar Jain and another . . . . Petitioners VS. Sh. Ravi Sharma and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Keshav Kataria, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate with Mr.S.K. Kakkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Amit Kamboj, Advocate for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) The controversy in this revision is with regard to order passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Gurgaon dated 10.12.2009 whereby, he has ordered the plaintiff to deposit balance sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell dated 4.12.2005, in the name of the Court, in the form of fixed deposit in some nationalized bank within a period of 15 days to show their readiness and willingness to perform their part of agreement. It has transpired, during the course of argument, that the petitioners would deposit the balance amount of sale consideration as directed in the impugned order provided the suit is decided by the CR No.7647 of 2009 (O&M) -2- learned trial Court within a stipulated period, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the respondents/defendants would cooperate in the disposal of the suit. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that despite the fact that the evidence is continuing since 2007, yet the witnesses have not been cross-examined by the defendants. Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Kakkar, Advocate appearing on behalf of seller (respondent No.1) and Sh. Amit Kamboj, Advocate appearing on behalf of HUDA (respondent No.2) have stated at the Bar that they would fully cooperate with the proceedings of the trial Court and would not take any date unnecessarily. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that they would assist the Court for the disposal of the suit within the stipulated period. On these assurances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not interested in pursuing the present revision petition. However, it is submitted that another 15 days time may be granted from the date of order of this Court for the purpose of depositing the balance sale consideration. In view of the fair stand taken by both the counsel for the parties, the present petition is dismissed, as not pressed, so far as the impugned order is concerned. However, the aforesaid order is kept intact with liberty to the petitioners to deposit the balance consideration within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of this order. CR No.7647 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Since, it is an order obtained by both the parties on their own consent, therefore, it may not be treated as precedent. In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial of the suit as early as possible preferably within a period of three months. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) March 10, 2010 JUDGE vivek