(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenges order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the executing Court namely Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal, dismissing the application of the judgment debtor-petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for brevity 'the Act') for rescinding the agreement to sell dated 10.1.1992. It is appropriate to mention that vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.1997, the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal has decreed the suit filed by the decree holder-respondent Gurbaj Singh and a direction was issued to the judgment debtor-petitioner to get the sale deed registered and executed after receipt of the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/- within the time of two months. A prayer in the application was made by the judgment debtor that as the decree-holder respondent had failed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/- the decree in question is liable to be rescinded. The application has been dismissed by the executing Court by holding that no fault could be attributed to the decree holder respondent as he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has been found that he issued a notice to the judgment debtor-petitioner through his counsel Shri D.C. Gupta to get the sale deed executed and registered after the receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. The registered envelope had been returned back unserved and two reports have been made thereon. In the report dated 16.1.2003 it has been recorded that the judgment-debtor petitioner does not reside in Karnal and infact is residing at village Salaru. In the report dated 21.3.2003 it has been mentioned that the judgment debtor petitioner is not residing in village Salaru and is residing at Karnal. Both the reports apparently are contradictory to each other and intention of the judgment debtor-petitioner lies bare in these two reports. He wanted to defeat the execution of the decree by all means. On 27.1.2003 the decree holder-respondent appeared before the Sub Registrar, Karnal for execution and registration of the sale deed but the judgment debtor petitioner failed to turn up. His presence has been marked before the Sub Registrar and his affidavit was also placed on the file. It is in these circumstances that the executing Court returned a firm finding that the decree holder has always been ready and willing to get the sale deed registered after making the payment of the balance sale consideration but the judgment debtor-petitioner has been delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. On the basis of the afore-mentioned findings, the executing Court dismissed the application and directed the judgment debtor-petitioner to get the sale deed registered and executed uptil 31.5.2003 after giving seven days registered notice to the decree holder-respondent depicting therein the time and place for registration of the sale deed.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order passed by the executing Court, I am of the considered opinion that this petition is liable to be dismissed. Firstly, the findings recorded by the executing Court make it evident that the decree holder-respondent is not at fault and he had made all efforts to perform his part of the duty within the period specified in the judgment and decree dated 4.10.1997. Moreover, it has been held that the Court which had passed the decree does not lose jurisdiction after the grant of decree for specific performance. The afore mentioned view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Mohar Singh v. Mangilal, 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 296 (SC) : 1997(9) SCC 217. The observations of their Lordship in this regard reads as under :