Dismissed

Varinder Bedi and Ors. v. Satwant Kaur and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2008RSA/4100/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal in a specific performance suit. The court held that since the plaintiff failed to deposit the sale consideration within the time granted by the trial court, the operative portion of the decree should be strictly construed, rendering the suit dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the strict construction of the decree under appeal was affirmed.

Varinder Bedi and Ors. Vs Satwant Kaur and Anr. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Regular Second Appeal No. 4100 of 2008

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Regular Second Appeal No. 4100 of 2008

¶5

Date of Decision: 12.12.2008

¶6

Varinder Bedi and Others

¶7

…Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Satwant Kaur and Another

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶14

The counsel has confined his prayer and has urged that as per the operative portion of judgment of learned trial Court, it was ordered that plaintiff was granted three months time from the date of passing the decree to deposit the balance sale consideration in Court, failing which, suit of the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

¶15

Counsel states that the judgment was passed by learned trial Court on 4.10.2005. The operation of the judgment & order was not stayed by learned lower Appellate Court and the amount has not been deposited by the plaintiff. It has been further stated that plaintiff has also not sought extension of time. Therefore, learned counsel states that operative portion of the judgment of learned trial Court, which has been affirmed by learned lower Appellate Court, should have been strictly construed.

¶16

Regular Second Appeal No. 4100 of 2008

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel has failed to satisfy me as to how the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below can be re-appreciated and reappraised in a regular second appeal.

¶19

In the present case suit for specific performance and mandatory injunction and declaration was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, which was decreed by learned trial Court, terms of which have been mentioned above. An appeal was also filed and the same was dismissed by learned lower Appellate Court.

¶20

No substantial question of law arise in this appeal which warrants interference of this Court. The operative portion is to be strictly construed by the Executing Court, therefore, no variation is called for.

¶21

There is no merit in the present appeal and hence, the same is dismissed.

¶22

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶23

December 12, 2008 “ DK ”

Varinder Bedi and Ors. v. Satwant Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varinder Bedi and Ors. v. Satwant Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar and Anr. Vs Panna Lal

Khazan Singh and Ors. Vs Prithvi Singh Sharma

Sham Lal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jitender Kumar Vs Bagga Surgical Indus

Ajay Kumar Bhandari Vs Sanjay Gupta

Mohd. Salimudin and Anr. Vs Somi Devi and Anr.