Petitioner challenged an order declining objections to execution in a specific performance suit. Court upheld the Executing Court's finding that the petitioner adopted obstructionist tactics and never was ready to execute, dismissing the petition.
Petition dismissed; civil miscellaneous application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R. No.643 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.M. No.27671-CII of 2012 in/and C.R. No.643 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.12.2012
Kiran Ghai
...Petitioner
Vs.
Surinder Kumar Mittal and others
...Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. S.P. Garg, Advocate for the respondents.
****
Ajay Tewari, J.(Oral)
C.M. No.27671-CII of 2012 has been filed for stay of further
proceedings. Learned counsel for the parties pray that the main case is listed for hearing today itself.
This petition has been filed against an order dated 29.10.2011 passed by the Executing Court declining the objections filed by the petitioner.
The suit for specific performance was decreed vide judgment
C.R. No.643 of 2012 (O&M)
-2-
dated 18.08.2000 in the terms that the petitioner was directed to get income tax clearance and thereafter the respondents was entitled to get the sale deed registered after satisfying the mortgagee and after paying the balance consideration of `9,00,130/- and the exercise was to be done within a period of three months. In the instant petition, the plea of the objector-judgment debtor is that the decree has become inexecutable since she has been deprived of the sale consideration for a period of more than a decade despite having been ready to execute the sale deed within the original time. The Executing Court however found that the petitioner had never been ready to execute the sale deed within the time granted by the trial Court and had rather used all the tactics possible to thwart the decree.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in her reply to the execution application, the petitioner had mentioned as far back as on 31.01.2001 that she was ready to execute the sale deed but despite that the respondents did not care to execute the same.
Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in that reply a conditional stand had been taken by the petitioner to the extent that she would only execute the sale deed if she was granted interest @ 22% per annum with quarterly rests. As per the learned counsel for the respondents, whenever the respondents wanted to get the sale deed registered the petitioner would insist that first her claim for interest would be decided and then only would she execute the sale deed.
After having gone through the record, I find that the conclusion drawn by the Executing Court regarding the obstructionist tactics employed
C.R. No.643 of 2012 (O&M)
-3-
by the petitioner cannot be deemed to be either arbitrary or based on no evidence. The Court has quoted various instances of the stone-walling techniques used by the petitioner.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) December 13, 2012 JUDGE ashish
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the decree for specific performance had become inexecutable due to failure to pay sale consideration over a decade?
Whether the Executing Court's conclusion that the petitioner employed obstructionist tactics to thwart the decree was arbitrary?
Whether the petitioner's claim of readiness to execute was bona fide or merely a conditional stand?
Kiran Ghai
Surinder Kumar Mittal and others
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
