C.R. No.2523 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.2523 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.11.2009
Bhim son of Joga Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
Deshraj and others ....Respondents
Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate with
Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The revision is against the order rejecting execution
application filed at the instance of the decree holder. The suit had
been filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated
21.02.1979. The suit had been originally dismissed on
15.03.1982 and the decision was set aside in appeal allowing the
claim of the plaintiff and granting the plaintiff to be entitled to a
decree for specific performance. The Appellate Court decree
merely provided as follows:
“It is ordered that the appeal is accepted. The judgment
C.R. No.2523 of 2008 -2-and decree passed by the trial Court are set aside and in
its place, I pass a decree for possession by way of
specific performance of any agreement to sell in favour
of the plaintiff/appellant and against the defendants No.1
to 3. Defendants are directed to execute the sale deed
within a period of one month, failing which the plaintiff
will have to apply for getting the sale deed executed
within the next two months, his suit shall stand
dismissed. The plaintiff to get the costs throughout.”
2. It must be noticed that the decree itself does not specify
any time for making the payment but states that the plaintiff will
be entitled to apply for getting the sale deed executed within the
next two months. The judgment and decree were dated
20.05.1983 and execution petition was filed within the time so
specified namely on 16.07.1983.
3. It appears that a Regular Second Appeal had been filed
by the judgment debtor in RSA No.1593 of 1983. It was
dismissed on 27.10.2003 and the Special Leave Petition to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had also failed by its dismissal on
13.08.2004. Neither in the High Court nor in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court were there any specific directions for deposit of
amount. The decree holder has, under these circumstances,
deposited the amount on 11.01.2005 and has levied execution for
obtaining a sale deed from the judgment debtor. The judgment
C.R. No.2523 of 2008 -3-
debtor had not even filed any application under Section 28 of
Specific Relief Act for rescission of contract. The Executing
Court, however, has upheld the objection taken by the judgment
debtor that since the balance of sale consideration was not
deposited within time, the decree holder cannot avail of the
benefit of the decree. The decision of the Court below is clearly
erroneous. It has been held authoritatively by several judgments
that the rights secured in judgment and decree cannot be easily
whittled away and the Courts shall always be liberal in their
approach to condone the delay, if there is ever a delay and if
reasons are adduced for the delay. In this case, the question of
finding that the decree holder is guilty of any delay or laches does
not arise since the decree, which I have extracted above does not
stipulate any particular time before when the amount was to be
paid. The question would be then whether there is any conduct
that could be attributed to decree holder that may lead to an
inference that the decree holder has waived his right. The SLP
was disposed of on 13.08.2004 and the amount has been
deposited on 11.01.2005. There can hardly be said to be any
delay in such a process. We have also noticed that the execution
petition for obtaining a sale deed had been filed on 16.07.1983,
within the time specified in the Appellate Court decree, but the
further proceedings did not ensue only on account of institution of
a Regular Second Appeal by the judgment debtor and by the
C.R. No.2523 of 2008 -4-
operation of the order of stay.
4. The order of the lower Court is set aside and the civil
revision is allowed. The decree holder shall be entitled to
enforcement of the decree in accordance with law.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
November 16, 2009
Pankaj*