LAWS(P&H)-2007-3-352

BHUPINDER KUMAR Vs. ANGREJ SINGH

Decided On March 23, 2007
BHUPINDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
ANGREJ SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for execution of the decree of specific performance.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.11.1990 vide which respondent Judgment-debtor had agreed to sell land measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Pehowa. The learned trial Court was pleased to decree the suit with costs and directions were issued to the defendant to get the sale-deed executed and registered in favour of the decree-holder on payment of Rs. 3,850/- per marla less amount of Rs. 20,000/- already received by the defendant within a period of three months from the passing of the judgment. It was further directed that on the failure of the defendant Judgment-debtor to do so the plaintiff will be at liberty to get the sale-deed executed and registered through the court. The decree was passed on 13.10.1998.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Tivoli Park Apartments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Dhirendra Mullick, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 440 (Calcutta) contended that as the court had not fixed or allowed any period for depositing any money by the petitioner, therefore, Section 28 of the Act has no application in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarupi and others v. Har Gian and others, AIR 1975 Punjab and Haryana 231 to contend that in case of default on the part of the decree-holder to deposit the money Judgment-debtor is entitled to apply for recision of contract under Section 28(1) of the Act. But so long as the Judgment-debtor does not apply for such relief the decree subsists and decree-holder can still execute it within a period of limitation by depositing the purchase money within the time allowed so extended. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as the decree did not direct that in the event of default in deposit within the time fixed the suit shall stand dismissed, it was not open to the court to have rejected the application.