JASBIR KAUR Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order dated 25-2-1999 passed by the trial Court dismissing the objections filed by Smt. Jasbir Kaur, judgment debtor, and allowing the decree holder to deposit the balance sale price in the Court within two months.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for decision of the present case are that Surjit Singh, plaintiff, had filed a suit against the defendants for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6-2-1987 allegedly executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the agricultural land measuring 37 kanals 7 marlas. The said suit was contested by the defendants. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (owners) filed separate written statement, while defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (subsequent vendees) filed separate written statement. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 17-12-1992, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 6-2-1987 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the remaining sale price within a period of two months from the said date. The said judgment and decree were challenged by Smt. Jasbir Kaur, defendant No. 3 (subsequent vendee) by way of appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment and decree dated 27-3-1996, affirming the findings of the trial Court on all issues. However, the decree of the trial Court was modified in respect of its form and it was directed that the vendors shall execute the sale deed in accordance with the agreement dated 6-2-1987 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3, appellant (subsequent vendee) shall also join in the execution of the sale deed so as to transfer her rights obtained under the subsequent sale deed. It was further directed that at the time of execution of the sale deed, out of the consideration a sum of Rs. 19,500/- shall be paid to subsequent purchaser Smt. Jasbir Kaur and the balance shall be disbursed to the vendors after deducting the costs. It is not disputed before me that this judgment and decree dated 27-3-1996 passed by the District Judge, affirming the judgment and decree dated 17-12-1992, became final between the parties. After the appeal was decided by the District Judge, Surjit Singh, decree holder filed execution petition (on 17-8-1996) alleging therein that the judgment debtors had not complied with the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge and had not executed the sale deed in favour of the decree holder in terms of the agreement to sell dated 6-2-1987. It was prayed in the said application that the judgment debtors be directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land and the decree holder be delivered the actual possession of the suit land by issuing warrants of possession. Thereafter, Jasbir Kaur (subsequent vendee) filed objections dated 21-2-1998 under Section 47, CPC, taking up various objections including the plea that the decree holder had not deposited the sale amount within the stipulated time and as such the execution petition was liable to be dismissed. These objections filed by Jasbir Kaur were still pending when Surjit Singh, decree holder, filed an application dated 23-11-1998 for permission to deposit the sale consideration in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 27-3-1996 passed by the District Judge. The said application of the decree holder was contested by defendant No. 3 Jasbir Kaur by filing reply dated 7-1-1999. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 25-2-1999, dismissed the objections filed by Jasbir Kaur, defendant, and allowed the decree holder to deposit the balance sale price in the Court within two months. It is against this order of the trial Court that Jasbir Kaur had filed the present revision petition.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.