Judgment:
CR No.7818 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (216) CR No.7818 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:04.02.2014 Usha Sharma and others ......Petitioners Versus Kiran Bala and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.D.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the respondents.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 24.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) whereby application moved by them for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration in pursuance to the judgment/decree dated 13.06.2011, was dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Impugned order dated 24.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) reads as under:- “An application under Section 148 read with Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7818 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Section 151 CPC, for extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- has been moved, wherein it has been submitted that this Court had passed a Judgment and Decree dated 13.06.2011 for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in favour of applicants, as per which, they had to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- as balance sale consideration in the treasury within one month from the date of decree dated 13.06.2011.
Applicant Smt.
Usha Sharma widow of Sham Sunder was ready with balance consideration, but she under went a heart operation and could not approach her counsel and despite having sufficient funds with her could not deposit the same within time as directed by the Court.
There was no deliberate and intentional delay on the part of applicant/plaintiff Usha Sharma in depositing the remaining sale consideration and delay is duly to bona fide and genuine reason.
A prayer was made for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration.
Upon consideration of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that no time for deposit of balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- can be extended, because it was only applicant Usha Sharma, who was suffering from ailment and was being treated for Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7818 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the same, but her sons Romeo, Parmod Sharma and Vinod Sharma, who were also impleaded in the suit after the death of their father Sham Sunder Sharma being his legal heiRs.were admittedly not ill and if applicant Usha Sharma was having sufficient funds to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- then her sons could have deposited the same in the treasury within the stipulated period i.e.within one month from the date of decree dated 13.06.2011.
Thus, it has to be concluded that legal heirs of Sham Sunder were not having sufficient funds to deposit the balance sale consideration, as directed by the Court.
Judgments in Harbans Singh Grewal versus Puran Singh and Others 1990 Civil Court Cases 809 (P & H).Chitambaran versus Viswambaran 2000 (2) Civil Court Cases (Kerala) and Kehar Singh versus Ashok Kumar 2008 (3) Civil Court Cases 637 (P&H).relied upon by learned counsel for applicants-plaintiffs have no application to the facts of present case.
In view of the facts discussed above, the application moved by the applicants/plaintiffs stands dismissed.
Papers be tagged with the main case file.”
.
Thus, in the present case, suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.05.2003 was filed by Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7818 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Sham Sunder Sharma.
During the pendency of the suit Sham Sunder Sharma died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
The suit was decreed in ex parte and vide judgment dated 13.06.2011, it was held as under:- “In view of the foregoing discussion, present suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell is hereby decreed with costs.
Legal heirs of plaintiffs are directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- in the treasury within one month from today.
Legal heirs of defendant are directed to deliver possession of the suit land to legal heirs of plaintiff and get the sale deed executed and registered in their favour within two months from today.
Expenses as regards the execution and registration of sale deed shall be borne by legal heirs of plaintiff.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File after needful be consigned to record room.”
.
Thereafter, an application was moved in November, 2011 for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration.
The reason given by the petitioners was that they could not deposit the balance sale consideration within the time fixed as Usha Sharma had to undergo a heart surgery.
It was also averred that the petitioners were ready with the balance sale consideration but could not deposit the same as Usha Sharma had to undergo a heart Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.7818 of 2011 (O&M) -5- surgery.
In the present case, sons of Usha Sharma were also parties to the suit.
Thus, petitioners were aware of the fact that the amount of balance sale consideration was to be deposited within the period of one month from the passing of the decree.
However, despite the said fact, they failed to do so as they were not having the balance amount of sale consideration.
In these circumstances the learned trial court rightly held that the time for deposit of the balance sale consideration could not be extended, as the application for extending the time had been filed much after the expiry of period of one month allowed by the trial court for deposit of the balance sale consideration.
Hence, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 04, 2014.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document