NARPAT Vs. PARTAP SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is against the dismissal of an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act filed by the judgment -debtor for rescission of the decree granted for specific performance. The suit for specific performance had been decreed after contest on 29.4.2006 providing for two months for completion of sale after deposit/payment of balance sale consideration. It appears that the judgment debtor had preferred an appeal against the judgment and the appeal to the District Judge and further appeal to the High Court and the Supreme Court and all were dismissed. After the dismissal of the appeal in the first court on 13.10.2006, the decree -holder appears to have filed an application for execution of the decree and moved an application also for extension of time for depositing of money. The application was ordered allowing for such deposit, but this order passed by the executing court was a subject of appeal to the District Court by the judgment -debtor. The District Judge had allowed the appeal of the judgment -debtor and rejected acceptance of deposit beyond the period. This order of the District Judge was a subject of revision in Civil Revision No. 5584 of 2008 by the decree -holder and the court allowed the Civil Revision and set aside the order of the District Judge declining the deposit to be made before the executing court. In the manner of disposal, the High Court had observed that the judgment -debtor had not even filed an application under Section 28 of the Act and, therefore, this was additionally a reason why the District Judge order cannot be sustained. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner now points out that when the High Court passed the order in Civil Revision No. 5584 of 2008, it had not been properly apprised that a petition had indeed been filed and therefore an occasion arises now to decide whether the decree -holder would have the benefit of extension or whether the decree was required to be rescinded. I am told that even a further revision to the Supreme Court against the order in Civil Revision No. 5584 of 2008 before this Court was dismissed in limine. I am of the view that there is nothing further to be adjudicated under Section 28 of the Act when the High Court was allowing the Civil Revision and setting aside the order of the District Court who declined the deposit to be made. That concluded the rights of the parties with regard to whether time could be extended or not. The court's observations that the judgment -debtor had not even filed an application under Section 28 of the Act was not to be taken as the only ground on which the High Court rejected the plea. Two options were open for the judgment -debtor at that time. He could have either filed an application for review before the High Court pointing out to pendency of the petition under Section 28 of the Act or he could have canvassed the correctness of the judgment in the higher court. He actually did it and approached the Supreme Court. I have already observed that even the order of the High Court allowing the Civil Revision filed by the decree -holder. It actually resulted in an adjudication whether the decree -holder could be permitted to deposit the amount by extending the time for such deposit. Indeed, it was the only substantial issue that fell for consideration before High Court and the Supreme Court. If that decision had been taken, such adjudication cannot be vexed again before the executing court. The executing court had dismissed the application and it appears an appeal had been filed before the District Court and the revision is filed against the decision of the High Court. It is even doubtful if the appeal could have been entertained by the District Judge, when the order passed in the application under Section 28 was only revisable. The petitioner has also exhausted an unavailable remedy before the District Judge before arriving to this Court. I do not find any reason for intervention in the impugned order and the Civil Revision is dismissed accordingly.