Dismissed

Dharamveer Singh v. Sher Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2026CR/3697/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A decree holder's belated application to deposit balance sale consideration to implement a specific performance decree was rejected; the court upheld the executing court's dismissal of his application, citing seven-year delay, lack of bona fides, dismissed execution proceedings, and absence of any extension of time.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dharamveer Singh Vs Sher Singh — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

111

CR-3697-2026

Date of Decision.:01.05.2026

¶6

Dharamveer Singh …..Pe��oner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sher Singh .….Respondent

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

Present:Mr. Vishneet Singh Kathpal, Advocate for the pe��oner. (through Video Conferencing).

¶11

¶12

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The present revision pe��on has been preferred by the pe��oner–decree holder assailing the order dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P- 10) passed by the learned Addi�onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, whereby the applica�on filed by him seeking permission to deposit the balance sale considera�on and to implement the decree for specific performance has been dismissed.

¶14

The factual matrix, in brief, is that the pe��oner had ins�tuted a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell, which came to be decreed on 09.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) . As per the terms of the decree, the defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plain�ff within a period of one month, failing which the plain�ff was held en�tled to get the sale deed executed through the process of Court upon deposit of the balance sale considera�on of ₹4,20,000/-.

¶15

It is not in dispute that the pe��oner (decree holder) failed to deposit the aforesaid amount within the s�pulated period. Even therea�er, no steps were taken within a reasonable �me to comply with the decree. Rather, a�er a lapse of about seven years, the pe��oner moved an

¶16

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-3697-2026

¶18

applica�on before the execu�ng Court seeking permission to deposit the balance sale considera�on on the plea that the non-deposit earlier was on account of inadvertence and miscommunica�on.

¶19

The said applica�on was contested by the respondent and, upon considera�on of the ma�er, the learned trial Court dismissed the same holding that the pe��oner had failed to comply with the decree within the prescribed �me, that the execu�on pe��on filed earlier had already been dismissed, and that no order gran�ng extension of �me had been passed by any superior Court.

¶20

Assailing the above order, learned counsel for the pe��oner has argued that the decree for specific performance subsists and that the Court retains discre�on to extend the �me for deposit of the balance sale considera�on. It is contended that refusal to permit such deposit results in denial of substan�ve relief granted under the decree.

¶21

Having considered the submissions, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned order.

¶22

It is no doubt true that in a decree for specific performance, the Court possesses the discre�on to extend �me for deposit of the balance sale considera�on. However, such discre�on is equitable in nature and is to be exercised on sound judicial principles. A party seeking such indulgence must demonstrate bona fides and sufficient cause for noncompliance within �me.

¶23

In the present case, the conduct of the pe��oner does not inspire confidence. The delay in seeking permission is not of a few days or months, but of about seven years. The explana�on offered is vague and wholly insufficient. No material has been placed on record to show that the pe��oner was prevented by any compelling circumstance from complying with the decree within the s�pulated period or even within a reasonable �me therea�er.

¶24

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

Page No. 2 of 3 Pages

¶26

CR-3697-2026

¶27

Significantly, the execu�on proceedings ini�ated by the pe��oner had already been dismissed. Once the execu�on pe��on has been dismissed and no challenge thereto has been shown to have been successfully pursued, the pe��oner cannot be permi�ed to circumvent the effect of such dismissal by filing an applica�on of the present nature. Permi�ng such a course would amount to unse�ling finality of judicial proceedings.

¶28

Further, the pe��oner has not been able to point out any order passed by an appellate Court or by this Court extending the �me for deposit of the balance sale considera�on. In the absence of such extension, the rights flowing from the decree cannot be kept alive indefinitely at the instance of a negligent decree holder.

¶29

The learned trial Court has, thus, rightly held that the applica�on filed by the pe��oner was not maintainable and that no ground was made out for gran�ng permission to deposit the balance amount at such a belated stage. The findings recorded are based on proper apprecia�on of the record and do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity.

¶30

It is well se�led that the revisional jurisdic�on of this Court is limited in scope and is not to be exercised as if it were an appellate jurisdic�on. Unless the impugned order is shown to be perverse or suffering from jurisdic�onal error, interference is not warranted. No such infirmity has been pointed out in the present case.

¶31

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

¶32

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

¶33

May 01, 2026 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶34

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

Page No. 3 of 3 Pages

Dharamveer Singh v. Sher Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dharamveer Singh v. Sher Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Chhikara Vs Rohit and Others

(O&M) Ram Niwas Vs Mahabir and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs Ajaib Singh and Anothers

Surjit Singh Vohra Vs the Confed and Another

Chhinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Om Parkash and Another Vs Dinesh Singh and Others