HARBANS SINGH GREWAL Vs. PURAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by Harbans Singh Grewal, Judgment Debtor, challenging order dated January 23, 1987, passed by Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana. Vide this order, the Decree Holder was allowed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as sale expenses.

(2.) PURAN Singh filed a suit against Harbans Singh Grewal for specific performance of agreement dated December 7, 1976 relating to the sale of house for a sum of Rs. 80,000/ -. A sum of Rs. 44,000/-was paid as earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs. 36,000/-was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. Harbans Singh Grewal contested the suit. However, on December 15, 1980 the trial Court decreed the suit The defendant was called upon to execute the sale deed on receipt of Rs. 36,000/- before the Sub Registrar. The expenses on account of stamp and registration of the sale deed were to be borne by the plaintiff. In the event of failure of defendant Harbans Singh Grewal to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff was to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 36,000/-in Court within one month thereafter together with necessary expenses on account of stamp and registration fee and thereafter the sale deed was to be executed through the agency of the Court In compliance of the aforesaid decree, the Decree Holder moved an application for deposit of Rs. 36,000/- and the expenses allowing fifteen days time As per the decree the amount was to be deposited on May 15, 1980 However, before this application was finally disposed of on May 21, 1980, the Decree Holder deposited Rs. 36,000/- and moved an application dated May 26, 1980 for a directoin to the Judgment Debtor to execcute the sale deed and on his failure by the Local Commissioner to be appointed for the said purpose. The delay in deposit of the amount was, thus, cond (sic)ned vide order dated August 18, 1990. The Court further ordered the execution of the sale deed through the process of the Court and the Decree Holder was directed to file a draft sale deed. Harbans Singh Grewal, judgment-debtor preferred a Revision Petition in the High Court against order dated August 18, 1980 In the meantime, Puran Singh, decree holder, died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The High Court set aside the direction regarding execution of the sale deed and remanded the case to the lower Court for fresh decision after observing as to whether the sale expenses had been deposited or not The parties were directed to appear in the trial Court on December 10, 1984. In the meantime. the decree-holder also died and his legal representatives were also brought on the file. Ultimately, in December 1986 an application was moved for permission to deposit Rs. 10, 000/- as sale expenses. It is on this application that the impugned order was passed, which is under challenge.

(3.) AT no stage, the judgment-debtor moved the Court under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for rescinding the contract for sale on account of non payment of the sale consideration or the sale expenses. The Court having granted time for deposit of balance of the sale consideration and expenses for the sale deed within a specific period, could order to extend the period while exercising power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, there was no direction in the decree (hat on failure to deposit the balance of the sale consideration of Rs. 36,000/- or a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses, the suit of the plaintiff was to be dismissed. In the absence of any such directions time granted in the decree could be extended having resort to the provisions of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In a such like matter Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Surai Singh v. Rajnarain Lal and Anr. , A. I. R. 1984 Pat. 155, held that power of Court under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be there to extend the time granted in the decree when there was nothing in the decree that non-payment of the amount within the time allowed would result in dismissal of the suit. As a matter of fact no time was fixed for deposit of expenses in the decree.