KARNAIL SINGH Vs. BALJEET SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 12.7.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned trial court, whereby his application for extension of time for depositing an amount of Rs. 30 lacs for the purpose of execution of the sale deed in compliance of the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2017 (Annexure P-1) was dismissed, decree-holder has approached this court by way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the impugned order.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

(3.) It is a matter of record that petitioner was plaintiff. He filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.4.2011. His suit came to be decreed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.2017, directing the decree-holder-plaintiff to deposit remaining amount of Rs. 30 lacs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, so as to get the sale deed executed. It is also not in dispute that decree-holder failed to deposit the amount in compliance of the direction issued to him vide abovesaid judgment and decree dated 18.4.2017. Few days before expiry of the period granted to him for depositing the amount of Rs. 30 lacs, petitioner moved an application seeking extension of time before the learned trial court. When the learned trial court found that decree-holder was not interested in depositing the amount and he was not having sufficient funds even on the day when the impugned order was passed, learned trial court was left with no other option except to decline any extension of time. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned trial court was well within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld.