CR No.2340 of 2009
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.2340 of 2009
Date of decision : 16-11-2009
Bhalinder Singh and others
....Petitioners
VERSUS
Narinder Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate,
for respondents no.1 to 5.
SURYA KANT J.(Oral)
This revision petition is directed against the order datd
15.04.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rajpura
whereby, on agreed terms, the respondents-defendants were
directed to get the sale deed executed and registered on 30.04.2009
on receiving the balance sale consideration from the petitioner-
plaintiffs in terms of the ‘agreement to sell’ dated 1.03.2006.
The petitioner-plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession by
way of specific performance of ‘agreement to sell’ dated 1.03.2006 in
respect of agriculture land measuring 78 Bighas situated at Village
Dhindsa, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. It is averred by them in the
CR No.2340 of 2009
-2-
plaint that the respondents-defendants agreed to sell the above
stated land on payment of total sale consideration of Rs.7 Crores 80
Lacs after adjusting the earnest money of Rs.1 Crore 71 Lacs
already paid to them at the time of execution of the ‘agreement to
sell’, dated 10.3.2006.
It was during the pendency of the civil suit that the trial court
passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2009 which reads as
follows:-
“Heard. Plaintiff is seeking relief by way of specific
performance of agreement to sell dated 1.3.2006 pertaining
to the suit land fully mention in the head note of plaint.
Defendant No.2 along with counsel for defendants Shri R.K.
Joshi Advocate on 19.3.2009 have made a statement which
was recorded separately to the effect that they are ready to
get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of
agreement in terms of agreement to sell dated 1.3.2006.
Under the circumstances, defendants are directed
to get the sale deed executed and registered on 30.4.2009
on receiving the balance sale consideration in terms of
agreement dated 1.3.2006. Report be awaited till 1.6.2009.”
On a plain reading of the impugned order, it is apparent that
not only the impugned order is virtually a consent order, it does not
adversely affect the petitioner-plaintiffs at all. The defendant-
respondents conceded the relief sought in the civil suit and agreed to
execute the sale deed, provided that the balance sale consideration
was paid to them. The admitted facts are that the petitioner-plaintiffs
themselves failed to arrange the sufficient funds and due to their
failure to pay the balance sale consideration, the sale deed could not
CR No.2340 of 2009
-3-
be executed or registered on 30.04.2009.
The petitioners have further sought extension of period of
six months to enable them to arrange the funds. Even that period
has also expired during the pendency of this revision petition.
In any case, unless the respondents agree, this Court, while
exercising its revisional jurisdiction cannot force the respondents,
contrary to agreed terms and conditions of contract, to extend the
period for execution of the sale deed.
No interference with the impugned order is called for.
Dismissed.
The records be sent back.
(SURYA KANT)
16.11.2009 JUDGE
manju