IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7752 of 2009. Date of Decision : 25.1.2010. M/s. Kapeeshwar Estates Pvt. Ltd. ......Petitioner Versus Smt. Murti Devi & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Parampal Singh, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, Ms. Nupur Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, Mr. Sunil K. Rana, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate, Mr. Varun Taran, Advocate for Mr. VK Chaudhari, Advocate, for respondent No.1 & 2 in CR No. 7382 of 2009. Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate, for respondents in CR No. 7676 and 7641 of 2009. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the respondent in CR No.6996 of 2009. Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3 in CR No. 7645 of 2009. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate, Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate, for respondents in CR No. 7640-42 & 7646 of 2009. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of this bunch of 17 civil revision petitions bearing No. 7752, 7380, 7382-83, 7461, 7640-42, 7645-46, 7649, 7676, 7753, 7754-55, 7803 of 2009 and 206, 305 of 2010 in which common question of law is involved. Challenge in all these petitions is to the identical orders of different dates passed in above noted cases by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, whereby, after framing issues, the trial Court directed the petitioners- plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration in fix deposit (F.D.R.) in suits for specific Civil Revision No. 7752 of 2009. (2) performance of contract of sale. While passing the impugned orders, it observed that since the petitioners-plaintiffs were ready and showing willingness to perform their part of the contract so, they must deposit the balance sale consideration. In a suit for possession by specific performance of sale of immovable properly, it is a duty cast by the statute on the plaintiff to plead and prove that he/she was always ready and willing to perform his/her part of the contract and is still ready and willing to pay the balance amount. Raising of such a legally imperative plea will not render the plaintiff to be liable to deposit the balance amount during the pendency of the suit. Neither there is any provision in law to require the plaintiff to deposit the balance during pendency of suit nor a direction to that effect shall sub-serve the cause of justice and fair play. The order is product of the own fertile but erroneous hypothesis of the trial Judge than being a requirement of law, substantial or even procedural. In Dharam Pal Singh vs. Ajit Singh Civil Revision No. 7089 dated December 22 nd , 2009, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant in a similar matter accepted the petition by observing that no such direction can be passed by the civil Court at this stage. In view of above, the revision petitions are accepted. The orders under challenge to the extent directing the petitioners-plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration, are hereby set-aside. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 25.1.2010. SN