LAWS(P&H)-1990-10-86

GURMUKH SINGH Vs. PHOOL CHAND

Decided On October 12, 1990
GURMUKH SINGH Appellant
V/S
PHOOL CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing court dated May 16, 1987, whereby on an application filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, (hereinafter called the Act), for rescission of the contract, the decree-holder was granted time to deposit the sale price within one month of the order.

(2.) The plaintiff-decree-holder's suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell was decreed on May 26, 1984. According to the decree, the judgment-debtor was ordered to specifically perform this part of the contract on or before July 30, 1984 and also restrain from alienating the land in any way to any person other than the plaintiff. The decree-holder filed the execution application on August 6, 1984. Reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the defendant dated December 19, 1984, wherein it was stated that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement; provided the decree-holder deposited the balance amount and paid the stamp duty etc. Inspite of the said reply, the decree-holder neither deposited the balance purchase price, nor deposited the stamp duty etc. The executing Court vide impugned order dated April 28, 1986 instead of rescinding the contract under Section 28 of the Act, allowed the decree-holder one month's time to deposit the sale price.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the executing Court had acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in granting time to the decree-holder on the application filed by them under Section 28 of the Act, for rescission of the contract. According to the learned counsel, there was absolutely no occasion to grant time when no such application was ever filed by the decree-holder; rather his conduct was to delay the matter on one reason or the other. The judgment-debtor even in his reply to the execution application clearly stated that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, but in spite of that, the decree-holder failed to deposit the balance amount and the stamp expenses. Under the circumstances, argued the learned counsel, the contract should have been rescinded under Section 28 of the Act and that there was absolutely no reason to extend the time for depositing the sale price. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Rajinder Singh v. Major Singh,1987 1 PunLR 561.