Anant Ram (Since Deceased) through Legal Representatives Vs Jagmal Singh (Since Deceased) through Legal Representatives

The present revision pe��on filed under Ar�cle 227 of the Cons�tu�on of India has been filed to assail the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Addi�onal Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the applica�on under Sec�on 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 filed pe��oner-plain�ff was dismissed.

¶14

Civil Suit No. 303-2008 was filed by Jagmal Singh ( respondent through his legal representa�ves herein) seeking possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.12.2006. The suit was decreed on 31.07.2014 (Annexure P-1), direc�ng the defendant–Anant Ram (pe��oner through his legal representa�ves herein) to execute and register the sale deed within two months.

¶15

The defendant preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court granted stay on 11.09.2014. However, the appeal was dismissed on 06.04.2018 for non-payment of court fees. A prior revision pe��on (CR No. 4349 of 2016) against the order dated 27.05.2016, declining the defendant's indigency applica�on under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC, was also dismissed by this Court on 19.02.2018 (Annexure P-2).

¶16

PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-3874-2025

¶18

Post dismissal of the appeal, the decree-holder ini�ated execu�on proceedings and filed an applica�on seeking disclosure of encumbrances on the suit property so it could be transferred free from liabili�es.

¶19

In response, the pe��oners moved an applica�on under Sec�on 28 of the Specific Relief Act, contending that the plain�ff had failed to deposit the balance sale considera�on within two months of the decree, thereby jus�fying rescission of the agreement and dismissal of the suit. This applica�on was rejected by the trial Court, leading to the present revision.

¶20

It is argued by learned counsel for the pe��oners that a decree for specific performance is a preliminary decree and the suit is deemed to remain pending. He submits that under Sec�on 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court has discre�on to either the extend �me or rescind the agreement. Since the decree-holder allegedly failed to deposit the sale considera�on within the s�pulated period, the trial Court erred in rejec�ng the applica�on.

¶21

A�er hearing the submissions and perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the conten�on. The trial Court, while dismissing the applica�on, rightly observed that the decree dated 31.07.2014 did not direct the plain�ff to deposit the balance sale considera�on within any fixed �me. The only direc�on was for the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months. Relying on Nispal Kaur v. Kulwant Singh, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 562 and Tara Singh v. Ravinderpal Singh, 2007(1) PLJ 486, it was correctly held that where the decree does not s�pulate �me for deposit, the decree-holder cannot be debarred from execu�ng the decree merely for not deposi�ng the sale considera�on along with the execu�on applica�on.

¶22

The trial Court further noted that while the pe��oners claimed to have issued a legal no�ce dated 02.08.2018 for execu�on of the sale deed on 16.08.2018, the decree-holder, Jagmal Singh, had already expired on 03.06.2018. The no�ce was returned unserved with an endorsement of the recipient’s death which a fact not disputed by the pe��oners.

¶23

PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

CR-3874-2025

¶26

Moreover, it was the pe��oners who failed to pursue their appeal due to non-payment of Court fees and had also earlier sought indigency under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC. On the other hand, the decree-holder had taken proac�ve steps by seeking informa�on about exis�ng encumbrances to facilitate execu�on. It is also worth no�ng that a substan�al loan existed on the suit property, which the defendant failed to clear, despite entering into the agreement to sell.

¶27

The trial Court rightly relied on Ved Singh (since deceased) through LRs v. Rameshwar (since deceased) through LRs, 2024 (1) PLR 551, where it was held that where the decree-holder is prompt in seeking execu�on of decree and permission to deposit the balance considera�on amount, the decree remains executable, and delay a�ributable to pendency of court proceedings cannot be held against the decree-holder.

¶28

This Court also places reliance on Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. S.K. Malhotra , Civil Revision No. 792 of 1999 decided on 19.08.1999 reported in (1999) 08 P&H CK 0071 , wherein it was held that once the decree is stayed by the appellate court, the �me prescribed in the decree ceases to run, and resumes only upon dismissal of the appeal. Accordingly, a decree-holder cannot be faulted for not deposi�ng the sale considera�on during the period of stay.

¶29

In the light of the above facts and se�led legal posi�on, this Court finds no error, illegality, or perversity in the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the applica�on under Sec�on 28 of the Specific Relief Act, which appears to have been filed merely to evade the execu�on of a binding decree.

¶30

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present pe��on, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶31

04.07.2025		(DE	EPAK GUPTA)
Pry			JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned?	Yes/No
	Whether reportable?	Yes/No

¶32

PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Anant Ram (Since Deceased) through Legal Representatives v. Jagmal Singh (Since Deceased) through Legal Representatives

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Ram (Since Deceased) through Legal Representatives v. Jagmal Singh (Since Deceased) through Legal Representatives

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sewa Haryana Vs D.S.Devesh

Kishan Sarup Vs Kartar

Krishan Vs State of Haryana

Amarjit Kaur Vs Baljinder Singh and Ors.

Lachhman Singh Vs State of Haryana

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab