BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. INDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - decree holder Bakhtawar Singh S/o Shri Ganda Singh has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order Annex.4 dtd. 6.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in execution proceedings in Civil Misc. Case No. 14/2007 - Bakhtawar Singh vs. Mst. Inder Kaur, whereby the learned Executing Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh refused to execute the decree in favour of the petitioner for specific performance for purchase for 4 bighas of agricultural land which was decreed in favour of the petitioner - plaintiff in Suit No. 113/2002 - Bakhtawar Singh vs. Mst. Inder Kaur on 16.8.2003. The decree dtd. 16.8.2003, a copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 1 directed the plaintiff - decree holder to deposit the balance consideration of Rs. 15,000/- within two months with the Court for getting the specific performance of the Agreement in question dtd. 8.6.1989 and unless the judgment debtor - defendant obtained the say for the higher Court within a period of six months from the said decree dtd. 16.8.2003, the decree holder was entitled to get the decree executed and the conveyance-dead executed by the trial Court itself in his favour and if the decree holder fails to deposit the said consideration of Rs. 15,000/- with additional amount of Rs. 35,000/-, then the decree holder will be only entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 35,000/- of the consideration already paid against the total compensation of Rs. 52,000/- from the judgment - debtor and in the meanwhile the defendant was restrained from alienating the suit property further.

(2.) After the said decree was made in favour of the plaintiff - petitioner on 16.8.2003, the decree holder obviously did not deposit the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the agreement dtd. 8.6.1989, but only later on field an application under Section 148 C.P.C. on 14.2.2007 after approximately about 3 and 1/2 years of the said decree seeking an extension of the aforesaid time of two months for deposit of additional compensation by him in the Court. The defendant - judgment debtor, Ms. Inder Kaur opposed and contested the said application under Section 148 C.P.C. and by the impugned order dtd. 6.12.2010, the learned Additional Dist. Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh rejected the said application holding that no sufficient ground was made out for extension of the time period of two months under section 148 C.P.C. and therefore, canceling or rescinding the agreement dtd. 8.6.1989 between the parties itself, the decree dtd. 16.8.2003 was nullified and the defendant - judgment debtor was directed to refund the said excess amount of Rs. 37,000/- (Rs. 52000/- was consideration and Rs. 37,000/- was paid as advance amount) which was originally received by the defendant under the said agreement from the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 6.12.2010, the decree holder - petitioner Bakhtawar Singh has approached this Court by way of present writ petition, which was filed on 8.1.2011.

(3.) While issuing notices of the writ petition, a coordinate bench of this Court on 2.2.2011 and directed the status quo to be maintained and by another order dtd. 18.3.2013, both the learned counsels were given time to take instructions in the matter as to whether on payment of some further and additional compensation, the plaintiff - petitioner can seek execution of decree in the suit for specific performance by extending time under Section 148 C.P.C. To the later order dtd. 18.3.2013, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. V.K. Agarwal today has submitted that his client has instructed him that he is not agreeable to the said proposal and therefore, the writ petition itself was head on merits.