Civil Revision No.1506 of 2009 (O&M) -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1506 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: July 28, 2009.
Satya Devi
...Petitioner(s)
v.
Rattan Chand & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. – (Oral):
The petitioner-judgment-debtor challenged the order dated
28.2.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya-
cum-Executing Court whereby her objections against execution of the
judgment and decree dated 9.11.1983, for alleged non-compliance of
Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, have been rejected.
The respondent-decree holders filed a suit for specific
performance of an agreement to sell which was decreed by the first
appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.1983. The Regular
Second Appeal No.243 of 1984 was dismissed on 1.7.2002 by this Court
and thereafter the petitioner/judgment-debtor’s Special Leave Petition was
Civil Revision No.1506 of 2009 (O&M) -: 2 :-
also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21.1.2003.
Since the petitioner/judgment-debtor failed to execute the sale
deed, the respondent-decree holders filed an execution application. The
petitioner judgment-debtor filed her objection-petition in which she took a
specific plea that the decree holders have not deposited the balance sale
consideration within the stipulated period of two months, granted by the
first appellate court while decreeing the suit. The said objection was turned
down by the Executing Court. The petitioner preferred Civil Revision
No.4497 of 2007 before this Court and the same was also dismissed vide
order dated 6.9.2007 in the following terms:-
“I have perused the decree dated 9.11.1983. It is true that
the observation of the Executing Court that the money could
be deposited at any time, is not according to law. However,
a perusal of the judgment and decree dated 9.11.1983 clearly
indicates that the amount of sale consideration, i.e.,
Rs.29,000/- was required to be paid within two months at the
time of execution and registration of sale deed. The First
Appellate Court while passing the decree, issued a
composite direction to the judgment debtor to execute the
sale deed and obtain its registration and simultaneously to
the decree holder to pay the sale consideration at the time of
execution/registration of sale deed within two months.
Since the sale deed has not been executed within the
stipulated period, there was no obligation upon the decree
holder to deposit the money as there was no such direction.
Executing Court has, however, proceeded to execute the
Civil Revision No.1506 of 2009 (O&M) -: 3 :-
decree. I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned
order.” (emphasis applied)
Relentlessly, the judgment-debtor again filed the objections,
this time labelling the same under Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act and
sought “to rescind the contract which was subject matter of the civil suit and
consequently to recall the order for execution of the sale deed.” The said
objection is also based upon the same plea that since the balance sale
consideration has not been deposited within the stipulated period of two
months as was granted by the District Judge while decreeing the suit, the
respondent decree-holder has failed to perform his part of the contract and,
thus, the contract itself stands rescinded. The second objection petition
has also been turned down by the Executing Court observing as follows:-
“… Perusal of the file shows that objection were fled by the
JD/applicant that the decree was procured by the decree
holder by fraud coercive measures and by misrepresentation
that Rs.33,000/- was not paid in time as directed by the Court
and as such the decree cannot be executed. However, after
hearing the counsel for the parties, the said objections were
dismissed vide order dated 4-8-2007. Perusal of the file
shows that aggrieved against this order, the JD/applicant
filed revision petition before the Hon’ble High Court as C.R.
No.4497 of 2007 and the said revision petition was dismissed
by the Hon’ble High Court by holding that since the sale deed
has not been executed within the stipulated period, there was
no obligation upon the decree holder to deposit the money as
there was a no such direction. Hence since there was no
Civil Revision No.1506 of 2009 (O&M) -: 4 :-direction given by the Hon’ble High Court to deposit the sale
consideration within the stipulated period, so now it can not
be said that since the decree holder failed to deposit the sale
consideration in time as ordered by the court of learned
District Judge, Hoshiarpur and therefore the decree is liable
to be rescinded. In my view, the present objections have
been filed by the applicant JD just to delay the proceedings
of the present execution and the same are not at all tenable in
the eye of law. The case law as referred by the learned
counsel for the applicant/JD in Y.N. Gangadhara Setty &
Others v. Jaya Parkash Reddy MD Karnataka Cooperative
Milk Producers Federation and reported in 2007(4) Recent
Civil Reports page 839 and in Chanda (dead) through LRS v.
Rattni & Another reported in 2007(2) Recent Civil Reports
page 535 (supreme Court) are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. In view of my above
discussion and reasons, it is held that the objections as filed
by the applicant/JD for rescind of the decree are not tenable
and the same are ordered to be dismissed”.
Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Chanda (dead) through LRS v. Rattni & Another, 2007(2) Recent Civil
Reports page 535 (supreme Court) , it is urged that since the decree holder
has failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the given period,
the application of the vendor to rescind the contract deserves to be allowed.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find
Civil Revision No.1506 of 2009 (O&M) -: 5 :-
any ground to interfere with the impugned order. As noticed earlier, the
identical objection raised by the judgment debtor that the decree is
inexecutable for the reasons that the decree holder has failed to deposit the
balance sale consideration within the stipulated period, has already been
turned down by the Executing Court as well as this Court.
In view of the categoric observations made by this Court in the
revisional order dated 6.9.2007, the second objection petition on the
identical grounds moved by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and not
maintainable.
Dismissed.
July 28, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge