Civil Revision No. 6487 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6487 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 21th, 2011 Om Parkash .... Petitioner Versus Harwinder Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. S.S.Bhinder, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by Om Parkash, one of the plaintiffs, under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modification of the order dated 12.10.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Budhlada, whereby extension of time sought for deposit of rest of the amount of consideration for 30 days was granted for 15 days. Plaintiffs Om Parkash and others had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30.11.2010 regarding the land measuring 14 kanals 10.5 marlas. Vide the agreement of sale, the land was agreed to be sold at the rate of Civil Revision No. 6487 of 2011 2 .. Rs.50 lakh per acre. A sum of Rs. 97.00 lakhs was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or upto 30.4.2011 on payment of the remaining sale consideration. The suit ended in judgment and decree dated 10.9.2011 (Annexure P/1) vide which learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Budhlada had granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement of sale. It was directed vide the judgment and decree in question that the plaintiffs would deposit the balance sale consideration within a period of one month, failing which it would be open to the defendant to seek rescission of the contract in terms of the provisions of section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The application dated 30.9.2011 was made to the said court for extension of time for deposit of the balance sale consideration by one month. The said application has been decided vide order dated 12.10.2011, vide which extension was given for 15 days' instead of 1 month. This revision petition has been filed just to get those 15 days enlarged to one month. I have heard Mr. S.S.Bhinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial court had been satisfied about the reason with the petitioner for extension of time. According to him, while granting Civil Revision No. 6487 of 2011 3 .. extension, the court limited the period to 15 days. According to him, this period is required to be enlarged to one month. According to him, his son fell ill and he remained busy in looking after him and so, he required the time as prayed for in the application for deposit of the money. As nothing was mentioned about the period of hospitalization of the son of the petitioner and the expenses incurred therein, learned counsel for the petitioner was questioned at the time of arguments in this regard. He has submitted that the extension was not sought on this ground but was being sought as the petitioner remained busy in looking after his son. It is a case where the land agreed to be sold is more than 5 acres and as it has been agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.50.00 lakhs per acre, more than 1.5 crores of rupees are required to be deposited in compliance of the decree dated 10.9.011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the remaining sale consideration is ready with the petitioner. Probably, he seems to have made this assertion because he did not want to make out a plea against the very case of the plaintiffs, where they claimed that they had been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that the other party failed to perform its part of the contract. By way of this plea, it was submitted by the plaintiffs that they were ready with the balance sale consideration. If they were Civil Revision No. 6487 of 2011 4 .. ready with the remaining sale consideration on 30.4.2011, the date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed, they must be ready with the money now also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has himself asserted now that the remaining sale consideration is ready with the petitioner and his co-plaintiffs. If that is so, what prevents them from depositing the sale consideration and getting the sale deed registered in terms of the decree dated 10.9.2011, is beyond my comprehension. The circumstances did not allow even grant of 15 days' time to the petitioner for depositing the balance sale consideration, but the same stands allowed to him and the same is yet to expire. For these reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, lacks merit and the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 21th, 2011 som