CHANDA Vs. RATTNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's revision petition directed against the order dated 15.9.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal rescinding the agreement to sell dated 25.3.1989 and dismissing the execution application. Facts giving rise to this petition may first be noticed.

(2.) Defendants-respondents entered into an agreement dated 25.3.1989 to sell land measuring 54 Kanals 13 Marlas to the plaintiff and received Rs.56,000/- as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.6.1989 on payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,39,000/-. Since the defendants did not execute the sale deed within the time specified in the agreement the plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit on 24.1.1990 for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The suit was decreed ex parte on 1.5.1992 and it is common case of the parties that the decree has become final between them. Para 6 of the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit reads as under:-

(3.) The plaintiff did not deposit the balance sale price within two months from the date of the decree nor did the defendants execute the sale deed. Plaintiff then moved an application on 10.10.1992 for the execution of the decree pleading therein that since the judgment debtor respondents had failed to execute the sale deed the same be executed through Court and that he (plaintiff) be allowed to deposit the balance sale price in Court. During the pendency of this application one Sarup Singh through his general attorney moved an application for being impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings on the plea that he was the owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of a decree dated 26.7.1991 which the defendants are alleged to have suffered in his favour. The executing Court as per its order dated 14.8.1995 allowed the applicant to be impleaded in the execution proceedings. Sarup Singh then filed objections to the execution application which were dismissed as per order dated 10.9.1998 and it was held that he was not a bona fide purchaser of the suit land. On 8.9.1998 the judgment debtors-respondents moved an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act (for short the Act) with a prayer that the agreement to sell dated 25.3.1989 be rescinded since the plaintiff-petitioner had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time allowed by the Court. This application was contested by the petitioner-plaintiff and on a consideration of the contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties the trial Court as per its order dated 15.9.1998 allowed the application and rescinded the original contract dated 25.3.1989 holding that the plaintiff had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time allowed by the Court. The execution application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was consequently dismissed. Hence the present revision petition.