CENTRE FORADVANCE STUDIES AND ENGINEERING Vs. HAKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Execution Petition under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff-decree holder, seeking execution and registration of the sale deed as per the decree dated 26-3-2004, passed by this Court.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present execution petition are that plaintiff-decree holder, namely, Centre for Advance Studies and Engineering, had filed a suit against Hakam Chand, defendant, seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated July 22, 2000, for the sale of suit land for a sale consideration of Rs. 55,000/- per bigha and a sum of Rs. 13,500/- having been paid as earnest money. The said suit was contested by the defendant. Various issues were framed. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time as the parties wanted to settle the dispute between themselves. On March 26, 2004 the parties compromised the matter. Statements of Hakam Chand defendant and Sh. Rajnish Maniktala. Advocate, Counsel for the plaintiff were recorded in this Court on March 26, 2004. On the basis of the said compromise arrived at between the parties, in the form of aforesaid statements, this Court passed a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated July 22,2000 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, with the direction that the defendant shall execute and register the sale deed of the suit property and also the surrounding land owned by the defendant and his brothers, in case the brothers were willing to sell the land, free from all encumbrances, on receipt of the balance sale consideration at the rate of Rs. 4 lacs per bigha, after getting the land redeemed from State Bank of Patiala, with whom the suit land was mortgaged, within three months from the said date i.e. March 26, 2004, on a date to be fixed by the plaintiff with advance notice of at least one week to the defendant, failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered through the nominee of the Registrar General of this Court. It was further directed that in case the plaintiff would fail to fix a date for registration of the sale deed within three months, from the said date i.e. March 26, 2004, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. It is in execution of the said decree dated March 26, 2004 that the plaintiff-decree holder filed the present petition under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC in this Court, for execution and registration of the sale deed as per decree dated March 26, 2004.

(3.) In the aforesaid petition under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC, it was alleged by the plaintiff-decree holder that after the passing of the aforesaid decree, the plaintiff applied for grant of permission from the Government, as the earlier permission was for a specified period and the same had expired during litigation. Fresh permission dated June 14, 2004 was placed on the record as Annexure A2 and as per the said permission: the sale deed was to be executed within three months from the date of issue of the said permission. It was alleged that the plaintiff had been contacting the defendant for redemption of the suit land, which was mortgaged with the Bank, but the same had not yet been redeemed. It was alleged that after obtaining permission from the Government the plaintiff again approached the defendant to redeem the suit land, but he refused to do so and in its absence no time could be fixed for execution of the sale deed. It was alleged that in view of the decree passed by this Court, the sale deed was to be executed and registered through the nominee of the Registrar General of this Court on deposit of balance sale consideration in the Registry of this Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff-decree holder, while filing the present petition under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC, in this Court, also deposited the requisite amount in the Registry of this Court on June 25, 2004, not only in respect of the land which was the subject matter of the aforesaid agreement to sell but also in respect of the surrounding land which was owned by the defendant and his brothers, as per the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had sent letters to the defendant and his brothers on 5-4-2004, 11-5-2004 and 16-6-2004 for execution of the sale deed and for redeeming the mortgage, but nothing had been done so far. Those letters were placed on the record as Annexures A3 to A6 and the various demand drafts were also enclosed along with the present execution petition. It was accordingly prayed that the sale deed in respect of the suit land as well as the surrounding land owned by the defendant and his brothers may be executed and registered through the nominee of Registrar General of this Court, in pursuance of the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court.