Kuldeep Singh Vs Satbir and Others

Pr e sent revision petition has bee n directed against the order d a ted 03.08.2018 pass e d by the learned Civil Judge (J u nior Division), Kaithal, whereby the application file d by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1 9 63 for rescission o f the contract was dismissed, an d the application filed by the dec r eeholder/responde n t for deposit of the balance sale c onsideration was allowed.

No t ice of motion was issued. The r e spondents appeared through lea r ned counsel Sh. M. S .Dalal, Advocate. This Court, vide order dated 17.07.2025, reco r ded the submission o f learned counsel for the respo n dent that the matter is fully cov e red by the judgme n t of this Court in Civil Re v ision No. 6706 of 2019 and the authoritative pr o nouncement of the Hon’ble Sup r eme Court of India in Balbir Singh and another v. Baldev Singh and others, 2025 INSC 81 . At that stage, lear n ed counsel for the p etitioner sought time to examine the said judgment. 3. To d ay, when the matter was taken u p, learned counsel for the petiti o ner candidly conceded that the judgment of the Hon’ b le Supreme Court in Balbir Singh’s case (supra) sq u arely covers the controversy in t h e present petition, and therefore, the matter in issue s tands concluded against the peti t ioner. The only plea raised was t hat TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-5533-2018 (O&M) - 2 -

some relief ma y be granted in respect of the i n terest payable on the balance s ale consideration.

Th e contention has been duly cons i dered. The Hon’ble Supreme C o urt in Balbir Singh’s case (supra) has categorically held that where a decree for spe c ific performance ha s been passed by the trial Court g ranting 20 days’ time to deposit the sale considerati o n, and the decree is affirmed in s econd appeal by the High Court, the decree of the trial Court merges with that of the High Court. In such a situation, the plaintiff/decree- h older is not obliged to deposit t h e balance sale consideration wi t hin 20 days from t h e date of the trial Court’s decre e , but only in terms of the decre e as affirmed by the H igh Court.

In v iew of the aforesaid legal positi o n, the impugned order passed by the trial Court allo w ing the decree-holder’s appli c ation for deposit of balance s ale consideration a n d dismissing the petitioner’s a p plication under Section 28 of the Specific Relief A ct, 1963 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or perversity.

As regards the submission on int e rest, it may be observed that the question of inte r est on the balance sale considera t ion was never an issue before lo w er Court. In such c i rcumstances, this Court cannot entertain such a plea for the first t i me in revision, mor e so when the law stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Conclusion

¶24

Ac c ordingly, the present civil revision petition stands dismissed. T he order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the learned Ci v il Judge (Junior Division), Kaith a l is

hereby upheld.

August 20, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Speaki n g Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kuldeep Singh v. Satbir and Others