Judgment:
C.R.No.2698 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2698 of 2012 Date of decision :
28. 01.2013 Devinder Singh & ors....Petitioners V/s Jarnail Singh & anr....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the respondents.
RAJAN GUPTA J.
(ORAL) Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the court below whereby application of judgment debtor under section 28 of Specific Relief Act has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order is unsustainable as respondent did not deposit the sale consideration within the prescribed period.
Plea has, however, been resisted by counsel for the respondent-decree holder.
He submits that there is no inordinate delay in depositing the sale consideration.
He has further contended that necessary deposit could not have been made by plaintiff without obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree.
Same was delivered on 21.08.2012 and sale consideration was deposited on 22.08.2012.
Thus, application under section 28 of the Act has been rightly rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
C.R.No.2698 o”
2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 11.10.1988.
Same was decreed on 27.07.2002 with a direction to him to deposit sale consideration within 15 days.
It appears that petitioner applied for copy of the judgment and decree on 27.07.2002 itself.
Same was prepared on 20.08.2002 and delivered to plaintiff on 21.08.2002.
On 22.08.2012 permission was sought for depositing sale consideration with the court.
An application was moved for this purpose.
Requisite permission was granted by the court.
I, thus, find no legal infirmity with the order.
It is well settled that court has power under section 148 CPC to enlarge the time for depositing the sale consideration.
In the instant case, amount was deposited without any inordinate delay.
A perusal of the decree shows that no condition was imposed therein regarding consequence of delay in deposit of the sale consideration.
In such circumstances, court below was well within its power to extend the period for deposit of amount.
In the judgment of this court reported as Nanha versus Risala & anr.
2007(5) RCR (Civil) 655 it has been held as follows:- “12.
The other judgments relied upon by the counsel for respondent No.1 also lay down the same view of law.
In Yeshoda's case (supra).the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to repel the argument that the Court cannot extend the time.
It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: “It is contended by Mr.Mahale, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.that after the expiry of the time prescribed by the court, the petitioner has a right to seek rescission of the decree for specific performance for non-compliance.
The Court, therefore, has no power to enlarge the time.
We find no force in the contention.
Section 148 CPC gives power to the court to enlarge the time for C.R.No.2698 o”
3. complying with the orders of the court from time to time.
Under those circumstances, the court has correctly exercised the discretion since the amount came to be deposited within three months from the date of dismissal of the application under Section 28.”
.”
13. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yeshoda's case (supra).the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not need discussion.”
14. In the present case, the judgment was passed by the trial Court on 15.1.1999.
Appeal was filed by the petitioner on 15.2.1999 and the stay order was granted by the learned Lower Appellate Court on 19.2.1999.
At the most, therefore, there was four days' delay in depositing the balance sale consideration and thereafter the operation of the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1999 was stayed by the Appellate Court.
The appeal was dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court on 2.5.2003 and the petitioner had filed an application on 29.5.2003 for permission to deposit the balance sale consideration.
This application was accepted by the Court on 15.11.2003 at the risk and responsibility of the decree holder and the decree holder had deposited the balance sale consideration on 17.11.2003 i.e.within two days when the order was passed by the Court.
In these circumstances, therefore, no abnormal delay can be attributed to the respondent decree holder and it is a fit case where time deserves to be extended.”
15. Since proper case has been made out for extension of time, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief deserves to be dismissed.”
16. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 4.6.2005 passed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application.”
C.R.No.2698 o”
4. In the instant case, admittedly decree was passed on 27.07.2012 and plaintiff deposited the sale consideration on 22.08.2012.
There is, thus, no inordinate delay in complying with the decree.
In any case, application moved before the court below for depositing the amount was allowed.
There is, thus, no merit in the revision petition.
Same is hereby dismissed.
January 28, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE