CR-5533-2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kuldeep Singh Satbir and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Gourav Verma, Mr. M.S.Dalal, Advocate for the respondents. MANDEEP PANNU 1. Present revision petition has been directed against 03.08.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of the contract was dismissed, and the application fil holder/respondent for deposit of the balance sale consideration was allowed. 2. Notice of motion was issued. The respondents appeared through learned counsel Sh. M.S.Dalal, Advocate. the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the matter is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 6706 of 2019 and the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in and another v. Balde counsel for the petitioner sought time to examine the said judgment. 3. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly conceded that the judgment of the Hon’ble Sup case (supra) squarely covers the controversy in the present petition, and therefore, the matter in issue stands concluded against the petitioner. The only plea raised was that (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS Satbir and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Gourav Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Dalal, Advocate for the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Present revision petition has been directed against 03.08.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of the contract was dismissed, and the application fil holder/respondent for deposit of the balance sale consideration was allowed. Notice of motion was issued. The respondents appeared through learned M.S.Dalal, Advocate. This Court, vide order dated 17.07.2025, recorded ubmission of learned counsel for the respondent that the matter is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 6706 of 2019 and the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in and another v. Baldev Singh and others, 2025 INSC 81 counsel for the petitioner sought time to examine the said judgment. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly conceded that the judgment of the Hon’ble Sup squarely covers the controversy in the present petition, and therefore, the matter in issue stands concluded against the petitioner. The only plea raised was that -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5533-2018 (O&M) Decided on :- 20.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Dalal, Advocate for the respondents. Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of the contract was dismissed, and the application filed by the decree holder/respondent for deposit of the balance sale consideration was allowed. Notice of motion was issued. The respondents appeared through learned This Court, vide order dated 17.07.2025, recorded ubmission of learned counsel for the respondent that the matter is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 6706 of 2019 and the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Balbir Singh v Singh and others, 2025 INSC 81. At that stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to examine the said judgment. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly conceded that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh’s squarely covers the controversy in the present petition, and therefore, the matter in issue stands concluded against the petitioner. The only plea raised was that - the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ed by the decree- Notice of motion was issued. The respondents appeared through learned This Court, vide order dated 17.07.2025, recorded ubmission of learned counsel for the respondent that the matter is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 6706 of 2019 and the Balbir Singh . At that stage, learned Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner Balbir Singh’s squarely covers the controversy in the present petition, and therefore, the matter in issue stands concluded against the petitioner. The only plea raised was that TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5533-2018 (O&M) some relief may be granted in respect of the intere consideration. 4. The contention has been duly considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh’s case (supra) performance has been passed by the trial Court granting 20 days’ time to deposit the sale consideration, and the decree is affirmed in second appeal by the High Court, the decree of the trial Court m plaintiff/decree-holder is not obliged to deposit the balance sale consideration within 20 days from the date of the trial Court’s decree, but only in terms of the decree as affirmed by the High C 5. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing the decree consideration and dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or perversity. 6. As regards the submission on interest, it may be observed that the question of interest on the balance sale consideration was never an issue before Court. In such circum in revision, more so when the law stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Conclusion 7. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition stands dismissed. The order dated 03.08.2018 hereby upheld. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 20, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) some relief may be granted in respect of the intere The contention has been duly considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Balbir Singh’s case (supra) has categorically held that where a decree for specific performance has been passed by the trial Court granting 20 days’ time to deposit the sale consideration, and the decree is affirmed in second appeal by the High Court, the decree of the trial Court merges with that of the High Court. In such a situation, the holder is not obliged to deposit the balance sale consideration within 20 days from the date of the trial Court’s decree, but only in terms of the decree as affirmed by the High Court. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing the decree-holder’s application for deposit of balance sale consideration and dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 28 of the Relief Act, 1963 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or perversity. As regards the submission on interest, it may be observed that the question of interest on the balance sale consideration was never an issue before . In such circumstances, this Court cannot entertain such a plea for the first time in revision, more so when the law stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition stands dismissed. The order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal is Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -2- some relief may be granted in respect of the interest payable on the balance sale The contention has been duly considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where a decree for specific performance has been passed by the trial Court granting 20 days’ time to deposit the sale consideration, and the decree is affirmed in second appeal by the High Court, the erges with that of the High Court. In such a situation, the holder is not obliged to deposit the balance sale consideration within 20 days from the date of the trial Court’s decree, but only in terms of the decree as In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned order passed by the holder’s application for deposit of balance sale consideration and dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 28 of the Relief Act, 1963 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or perversity. As regards the submission on interest, it may be observed that the question of interest on the balance sale consideration was never an issue before lower stances, this Court cannot entertain such a plea for the first time in revision, more so when the law stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition stands dismissed. The passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal is Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - st payable on the balance sale The contention has been duly considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where a decree for specific performance has been passed by the trial Court granting 20 days’ time to deposit the sale consideration, and the decree is affirmed in second appeal by the High Court, the erges with that of the High Court. In such a situation, the holder is not obliged to deposit the balance sale consideration within 20 days from the date of the trial Court’s decree, but only in terms of the decree as In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned order passed by the holder’s application for deposit of balance sale consideration and dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 28 of the As regards the submission on interest, it may be observed that the lower stances, this Court cannot entertain such a plea for the first time Accordingly, the present civil revision petition stands dismissed. The passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document