TEJ KAUR Vs. JITA SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application for review is sought by the revision petitioner to contend that in the order passed on 07.08.2015, I have made reference to the fact that the decree holder had no knowledge about the proceedings before the High Court on the conclusion of which sale deed was to be executed but actually they were parties to the appeal and, therefore, when the High Court disposed of the case on 13.05.1992, the decree holder knew about the manner of disposal of the case and the non -fulfillment of the obligation on the part of the decree holder to pay the balance of sale consideration within a period of 3 months could not have been extended. The counsel would refer to case law on the subject that a term of compromise relating to the time for performance cannot be modified by a court. The attempt was, therefore, to point out to an alleged patent error that when the High Court delivered the judgment on 13.05.1992, the execution petition filed only on 21.11.1992, that is, beyond a period of 6 months could not be taken as within time.

(2.) The copy of the High Court judgment has been filed before the court which shows that the decree holder was a party to the appeal but the main contest was only between the appellant before the High Court and the present judgment debtors who were respondents 1 to 3. The appeal was disposed of by the High Court on 13.05.1992 only in the presence of the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the judgment debtors 1 to 3 and I do not find anything from the records which would suggest that the decree holder was represented or that he had knowledge of the decree. I cannot find therefore the fundamental ground taken in the review application as valid.

(3.) As regards the plea that the court has no power to extend the time set down in the compromise, I will take this to be a well established principle that would not require to be restated. In this case, however, apart from an assertion that the decree holder knew about the judgment of the High Court on 13.05.1992 itself, I have nothing to draw such an inference, for, admittedly, there was no notice issued by the judgment debtors about the disposal of the case and their willingness to sell the property as per the compromise already entered between the parties. I will not, therefore, find the execution petition filed on 21.11.1992 offering to purchase the property on payment of balance of sale consideration to be belated. I asked the counsel for the respondents as to why the amount was not deposited at the same time and to that he would respond that advisedly the petition was filed with an offer and since the court had not passed the order directing the deposit, it was not done. It is a legal maxim that no act of court can prejudice the party (actus curiae neminem gravabit). In this case, after hearing the objections from the judgment debtors, the court passed an order only on 06.02.1995. It is in that order that the Executing Court has directed the deposit of balance of sale consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/ -. The objection taken by the judgment debtors is that even this amount of Rs. 2,60,000/ - was deposited only on 20.02.1995. The amount deposited was Rs. 2,06,250/ - and this was explained by the decree holder as resulting from the fact that one of the judgment debtors, Charan Kaur had executed a sale deed in respect of her share after receiving Rs. 68,750/ - and, therefore, even without minding Rs. 15,000/ - already paid as advance out of total consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/ -, the decree holder had deposited the balance of amount of Rs. 2,06,250/ -. It constituted according to the decree holder the entire payment and this was also done after hearing the objections of the judgment debtors.