Dismissed¶¶45

Kuldeep Kumar Sharma v. Randeep Rana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Aug 2025CR/5256/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 28 Specific Relief Act - extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration - decree under stay - demarcation dispute - ex parte proceedings - readiness and willingness - Mangal Singh v. Amrik Singh distinguished - Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh applied - revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order of Executing Court dated 19.07.2025 upheld. ¶¶45

Kuldeep Kumar Sharma Vs Randeep Rana — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition dismissed; order of Executing Court dated 19.07.2025 upheld.

¶¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the decree holder's deposit of balance sale consideration after the stipulated period (excluding stay) is barred and whether readiness and willingness is negatived by such failure. +2 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

The ratio of Mangal Singh v. Amrik Singh is not applicable because in that case the decree holder failed to deposit despite no impediment or stay order, whereas here the decree remained under stay and demarcation was a necessary pre-condition.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The delay in deposit was not intentional but occasioned by pendency of appeal, stay order, ex parte proceedings against judgment-debtor, and requirement of demarcation for ascertaining exact area. Decree holder demonstrated readiness and willingness.

¶¶33

Key takeaways

Under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court retains power to extend time for compliance of a conditional decree for specific performance; such extension does not amount to modification of the decree. The law in Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh squarely applies.ratio¶¶38
The revision petition is dismissed; the order of the Executing Court dated 19.07.2025 is upheld.ratio¶¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the court retains jurisdiction to extend time for deposit of balance sale consideration in a decree for specific performance where the delay is caused by stay orders, ex parte proceedings, and the necessity of demarcation to ascertain the exact area. Such extension does not amount to modification of the decree. Readiness and willingness of the decree holder is not negatived where the delay is not intentional but occasioned by legal impediments. The precedent in Mangal Singh v. Amrik Singh (2018) is distinguished on facts; the Supreme Court decision in Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh (2025) is applied. Revision petition against the Executing Court's order granting extension and dismissing rescission application is dismissed.

¶1

CR-5256-2025 (O&M) 113

¶2

- 1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

CR-5256-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 22.08.2025

¶6

Kuldeep Kuma r Sharma ....Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Randeep Rana ....Respondent

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶10

Present: M r . Gurfateh Singh Mann, Advoc a te and M s . Simar Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

M r . Jaskaran Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 - Caveator

¶12

-.-

¶13

MANDEEP PANNU J.

¶14

Th e present revision petition has b e en filed by the petitioner/Judg m ent Debtor Kuldee p Kumar Sharma, assailing the o r der dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Executi n g Court, whereby his applicat i on for rescission of contract u n der Section 28 of t h e Specific Relief Act was dis m issed, while the application of the decree holder/ r espondent for extension o f time to deposit balance s ale consideration w as allowed.

¶15

Chronology of Events:

¶16

O n 14.03.2017, the trial Court dec r eed a suit for specific performa n ce filed by the respondent/plaintiff, holding him e ntitled to specific performanc e of the agreement t o sell dated 28.02.2011on pay m ent of balance sale considera t ion calculated at ₹ 4 6,500/- per square yard in resp e ct of the plot measuring 34 fe e t x 168 feet (about 550 sq. yards) as existing on t h e spot after demarcation, with i n a period of three m onths from the date of the dec r ee. The defendant/judgment-de b tor TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-5256-2025 (O&M)

¶18

- 2-

¶19

was directed to get executed the requisite sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration, failing which the plaintiff/decree holder shall be entitled to get the same executed through Court of law.

¶20

On 15.04.2017, the judgment-debtor filed appeal, and on 17.04.2017, execution of the decree was stayed by the first Appellate Court. The appeal remained pending till its dismissal on 01.09.2021. Thus, the decree remained under stay from 17.04.2017 till 01.09.2021. Excluding this period, the decree holder was required to comply with the balance period of one month and 28 days remaining out of the original three months. Accordingly, the period for compliance was to expire on 29.10.2021.

¶21

In the meantime, execution petition was filed. Notice was issued to the judgment-debtor, who was proceeded against ex parte on 11.10.2021. On 26.11.2021, the decree holder was permitted to deposit the balance sale consideration on his own responsibility. On 10.01.2022, report of the Local Commissioner was received. On 17.01.2022, JUDGMENT-DEBTOR appeared and decree holder placed on record receipt of deposit of ₹3,25,000/-. On 02.02.2022, judgment-debtor moved application for rescission of contract as also for setting aside the order dated 11.10.2021, whereby he was proceeded ex parte and thereafter ex parte order was set aside.

¶22

On 07.03.2022, judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC for appointment of fresh Local Commissioner. The same was allowed and Local Commissioner was appointed on 13.05.2022. A second application for appointment of fresh Local Commissioner was, however, dismissed on 20.09.2022. Thereafter, judgment-debtor moved application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for rescission of contract dated 28.02.2011. On 05.11.2022, TRIPTI SAINIdecree holder filed reply along with an application under Section 28 for extension 2025.08.28 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CR-5256-2025 (O&M) - 3-

¶24

of time to deposit balance sale consideration. On 16.11.2022, decree holder placed on record voucher of payment. Reply thereto was filed by judgment-debtor on 21.11.2022. In the meanwhile, this Court vide order dated 17.11.2022 appointed a fresh Local Commissioner for demarcation, who submitted report on 20.12.2022.

¶25

The decree holder had deposited an amount of ₹1,71,34,000/- on calculation of area measuring 476 sq. yards instead of 550 sq. yards as originally mentioned. Judgment-debtor objected that such deposit was not in accordance with the decree and was beyond the stipulated time. He asserted that decree holder intentionally delayed the process by raising unnecessary dispute about demarcation, thereby depositing lesser amount and that too after expiry of the stipulated period.

¶26

The Executing Court, however, dismissed the application of judgment-debtor for rescission of contract, while allowing extension of time to the decree holder to deposit balance sale consideration, holding that the delay was not intentional, but occasioned on account of pending appeals, stay orders, and the need for proper demarcation.

¶27

Submissions of learned counsel for the parties

¶28

Learned counsel for judgment-debtor contends that the decree dated 14.03.2017 specifically required deposit within three months, which expired on 14.06.2017, and even after exclusion of period of stay, on 29.10.2021, deposit made thereafter is barred. It is argued that readiness and willingness, being a core requirement for grant of specific performance, stands negatived by failure to deposit amount in time. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of this Court passed in Mangal Singh v. Amrik Singh, 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 98 , wherein it has been held that extension of time for deposit cannot be granted where decree TRIPTI SAINIholder failed to deposit balance sale consideration within stipulated period. 2025.08.28 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CR-5256-2025 (O&M)

¶30

- 4-

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for decree holder relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh and another v. Baldev Singh and others, 2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 771 , to contend that the Court retains jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to extend time, and such extension does not amount to modification of the decree. It is further contended that in present case, decree holder had deposited amount soon after demarcation report and there was no deliberate lapse.

¶32

Findings

¶33

On consideration of rival submissions and the chronology of events, it is evident that the decree dated 14.03.2017 was stayed by the first Appellate Court on 17.04.2017, i.e. within one month and three days of its passing. The stay continued till 01.09.2021. Thus, decree holder cannot be faulted for not depositing the amount during that period. The balance period of one month and 28 days for compliance revived only from 02.09.2021 and expired on 29.10.2021. However, judgment-debtor was proceeded ex parte on 11.10.2021 and subsequently ex-parte proceedings were set aside only on 28.02.2022. Further, there was dispute regarding exact area available at site, for which Local Commissioner’s report was awaited. The decree itself stipulated that sale deed was to be executed qua land “as existing on spot after demarcation.” Therefore, balance sale consideration could only be deposited upon determination of actual area. The demarcation report was ultimately submitted only on 20.12.2022.

¶34

It is thus clear that the delay in deposit was occasioned not on account of any deliberate inaction of decree holder but due to pendency of appeal, stay order, ex parte proceedings against judgment-debtor, and requirement of demarcation for ascertaining exact area. In these circumstances, decree holder TRIPTI SAINIcannot be said to have failed in demonstrating readiness and willingness. 2025.08.28 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CR-5256-2025 (O&M)

¶36

- 5-

¶37

The reliance placed by petitioner/judgment-debtor on Mangal Singh v. Amrik Singh (supra) is misplaced. In that case, decree holder had failed to deposit balance sale consideration despite expiry of stipulated period and despite there being no impediment or stay order. The Court held that readiness and willingness was absent. In contrast, in the present case, the decree remained under stay, and subsequently, demarcation was a necessary pre-condition for calculation of exact balance consideration. Hence, the ratio of Mangal Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable.

¶38

On the other hand, the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh (supra) squarely applies, wherein it has been held that when time for payment of money is extended, it does not mean a modification of the decree. The trial Court has power to extend the time, and the expression “such further period as the Court may allow” would mean the Court which had passed the decree, or, where the application under Section 28 of the Act of 1963, is filed. It has further held that the very fact that Section 28 of the Act itself gives power to grant order of rescission of the decree, the same would indicate that till the sale deed is executed in execution of the decree, the Trial Court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree of specific performance. The Court has the description to extend time for compliance of the conditional decree as mentioned in the decree for specific performance.

¶39

The case of the respondent/defendant is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh (supra).

¶40

In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Executing Court dated 19.07.2025, whereby extension of time was granted to decree holder and application of judgment-debtor for rescission of

¶41

TRIPTI SAINIcontract was dismissed. 2025.08.28 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

CR-5256-2025 (O&M)

¶43

- 6-

¶44

Conclusion:

¶45

For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The order of the Executing Court dated 19.07.2025 is

¶46

upheld

¶47

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

¶48

August 22, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶49

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kuldeep Kumar Sharma v. Randeep Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kumar Sharma v. Randeep Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh

Balwinderjit Singh Vs Prince Kakkar

Jog Raj Vs Malan Devi

Rakma Vs Banta Deceased through Lrs.

Baldev Singh @ Jassa Singh Vs Gurwinder Singh

Dilbag Rai Bhalla Vs Parminder Kaur and Anr.