Dismissed

Narpat v. Partap Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2013CR/1051/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A revision against the dismissal of an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act seeking rescission of a decree for specific performance. The court held that the High Court's earlier order in a civil revision conclusively decided the issue of time extension, exhausting the remedies.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision was dismissed, upholding the order of the subordinate court.

Narpat Vs Partap Singh & Anr. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No. 1051 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 1051 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: July 23, 2013

Narpat

...Petitioner

Versus

Partap Singh and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. BR Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶14

The revision is against the dismissal of an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act filed by the judgment-debtor for rescission of the decree granted for specific performance. The suit for specific performance had been decreed after contest on 29.4.2006 providing for two months for completion of sale after deposit/payment of balance sale consideration. It appears that the judgment debtor had preferred an appeal against the judgment and the appeal to the District Judge and further appeal to the High Court and the Supreme Court and all were dismissed. After the dismissal of the appeal in the first court on 13.10.2006, the decree-holder appears to have filed an application for execution of the decree and moved an application also for extension of time for depositing of money. The application was ordered allowing for such deposit, but this order passed by the executing court was a subject of appeal to the District Court by the judgment-debtor. The District Judge had allowed the appeal of the judgment-debtor and rejected acceptance of deposit beyond the period. This

¶15

CR No. 1051 of 2012

¶16

¶17

order of the District Judge was a subject of revision in Civil Revision No. 5584 of 2008 by the decree-holder and the court allowed the Civil Revision and set aside the order of the District Judge declining the deposit to be made before the executing court. In the manner of disposal, the High Court had observed that the judgment-debtor had not even filed an application under Section 28 of the Act and, therefore, this was additionally a reason why the District Judge order cannot be sustained.

¶18

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner now points out that when the High Court passed the order in Civil Revision No. 5584 of 2008, it had not been properly apprised that a petition had indeed been filed and therefore an occasion arises now to decide whether the decree-holder would have the benefit of extension or whether the decree was required to be rescinded. I am told that even a further revision to the Supreme Court against the order in Civil Revision No. 5584 of 2008 before this Court was dismissed in limine. I am of the view that there is nothing further to be adjudicated under Section 28 of the Act when the High Court was allowing the Civil Revision and setting aside the order of the District Court who declined the deposit to be made. That concluded the rights of the parties with regard to whether time could be extended or not. The court's observations that the judgment-debtor had not even filed an application under Section 28 of the Act was not to be taken as the only ground on which the High Court rejected the plea. Two options were open for the judgmentdebtor at that time. He could have either filed an application for review before the High Court pointing out to pendency of the petition under Section 28 of the Act or he could have canvassed the correctness of the judgment in the higher court. He actually did it and approached the Supreme

¶19

¶20

CR No. 1051 of 2012

¶21

Court. I have already observed that even the order of the High Court allowing the Civil Revision filed by the decree-holder. It actually resulted in an adjudication whether the decree-holder could be permitted to deposit the amount by extending the time for such deposit. Indeed, it was the only substantial issue that fell for consideration before High Court and the Supreme Court. If that decision had been taken, such adjudication cannot be vexed again before the executing court. The executing court had dismissed the application and it appears an appeal had been filed before the District Court and the revision is filed against the decision of the High Court. It is even doubtful if the appeal could have been entertained by the District Judge, when the order passed in the application under Section 28 was only revisable. The petitioner has also exhausted an unavailable remedy before the District Judge before arriving to this Court. I do not find any reason for intervention in the impugned order and the Civil Revision is dismissed accordingly.

¶22

July 23, 2013 (K.KANNAN) prem JUDGE

Narpat v. Partap Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narpat v. Partap Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balbir Ingh and Anr. Vs Amolak Ram

H.S. Jatana Vs Dilbag Singh Sandhu and Ors.

Jasbir Singh Vs Shiv Singh & Anr.

Mahesh Singh Vs Mahendra Singh and Ors.

Parshotam Das Vs Chanchal Devi & Ors.

Nishan Singh Vs Harjinder Singh