CM-17312-CII to 17314-CII-2025 in/and CR-1022-2024 (O&M) [1] 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-17312-CII to 17314-CII-2025 in/and CR-1022-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.09.2025 Brij Bhushan ...Petitioner Versus Sukhbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) CM-17312-CII-2025 1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 307 days in filing the application for restoration of the main case. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and the delay of 307 days in filing the application for restoration of the main case is condoned. CM-17313-CII-2025 1. This is an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the case and recalling of order dated PAWAN KUMAR 2025.09.08 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-17312-CII to 17314-CII-2025 in/and CR-1022-2024 (O&M) [2] 23.09.2024. 2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated 23.09.2024 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself for final disposal. CM-17314-CII-2025 1. This is an application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC for impleading the legal representative of the petitioner-Brij Bhushan. 2. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and legal representative of the petitioner-Brij Bhushan is ordered to be impleaded as party subject to just exceptions and solely for the purpose of pursuing the main case and the same would not be construed as an adjudication on the entitlement of the estate of petitioner-Brij Bhushan. 3. Amended memo of parties is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main case 1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Executing Court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, vide which an application filed under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of contract filed by the respondent/Judgment Debtor has been allowed and agreement to sell dated 24.06.2011 has been rescinded and the execution application filed by the present PAWAN KUMAR 2025.09.08 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-17312-CII to 17314-CII-2025 in/and CR-1022-2024 (O&M) [3] petitioner/decree holder has been dismissed. 2. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance in the year 2012 against the respondent-defendant and the said suit was decreed on 23.03.2017 in the following terms:- “15. Relief In sequel to my findings in the above stated issues, the suit of plaintiff succeeds. Plaintiff is held entitled to a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.06.2011 in respect of suit property detailed in para no. 1 of the plaint, subject to the payment of balance sale consideration by plaintiff to defendant within a period of one month from the date of judgment. The defendant is directed to get executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration. In case, defendant do not comply with the decree then plaintiff is held entitled to get executed the sale deed in his favour after payment of balance sale consideration through intervention of court. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the records after due compliance. Sd/-(Yachana) Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, 23.03.2017 UID No. HR-0335” A perusal of the above would show that the petitioner was held entitled to a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.06.2011 subject to payment of balance sale consideration which was directed to be paid within a period of one month from the date of judgment. A period of one month would have lapsed on 23.04.2017. 3. Admittedly, balance amount of Rs.7,65,550/-, out of total sale PAWAN KUMAR 2025.09.08 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-17312-CII to 17314-CII-2025 in/and CR-1022-2024 (O&M) [4] consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- was not deposited within a period of said one month and in fact, was not deposited till May, 2023 and accordingly, the respondent-Judgment Debtor had moved an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of contract for sale dated 24.06.2011. In the said application, it was specifically averred that the Executing Court had passed various orders with respect to deposit of balance sale consideration but the decree holder had not explained about non-depositing of balance sale consideration. Paras 4 and 5 of the said application are reproduced hereinbelow:- “4. That on dated 31-05-2018 the Ld. Executing Court had passed the order that perusal of file shows that as per judgement and decree dated 23-03-2017 plaintiff was to deposit the balance sale consideration. On dated 12-10-2018 the same order was passed that on request of counsel for DH to come upon dated 15-01-2019 to make clarification regarding the deposition of balance sale consideration by him and thereafter to file purposed sale deed. The DH has not explained about not depositing balance sale consideration. Thereafter the Ld. Executing Court again passed same order on dated 25-12-2022, 24-01-2023, 13-03-2023, 16-03-2023, 17-03-2023, 21-03-2023, 31-03-2023. 5. That the decree holder has failed to pay the balance sale consideration after delay of 2277 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Civil Appeal Nos.1363-1364 of 2023 (Arising from SLP (C) Nos. 9504-9505 of 2022). D/D.24-02-2023 titled as Shyamlal versus Gundlur Masthan has held that Exparte judgment and decree for specific performance- Rs.8,00,000/- paid as advance-Balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- was directed to be deposited by plaintiff within two weeks from the said date. Nothing on PAWAN KUMAR 2025.09.08 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-17312-CII to 17314-CII-2025 in/and CR-1022-2024 (O&M) [5] record that any steps were taken by the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration. Application under section 148 CPC and section 28 of the Specific Relief Act filed after delay of 853 days. Held that in absence of any sufficient explanation, such a huge delay of 853 days ought not to have been condoned by the trial Court. High Court erred in confirming the same.” 4. Reference in the said application had also been made to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to contend that in case where balance sale consideration is directed to be paid within a specified period and the plaintiff has not paid the balance sale consideration, then, even in case an application is moved for condonation of delay by the plaintiff, then also, in case the delay is without sufficient explanation then the same would not be condoned. Delay in the said case was stated to be 853 days. In the present case, delay till the year 2023 when the said application was moved, was more than six years. It is not in dispute that no application for extension of time was ever filed by the petitioner in the present case. 5. The Executing Court vide impugned order dated 07.12.2023, after taking into consideration the direction given in the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017 and also the fact that neither the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,65,550/- had been paid till the passing of the order dated 07.12.2023 nor any extension of time had been sought before the Court, allowed the application filed by the defendant/Judgment Debtor for seeking rescission of contract for sale dated 24.06.2011. It was further observed that the conduct of the petitioner-decree holder clearly showed that there was no willingness and readiness on the part of the petitioner to PAWAN KUMAR 2025.09.08 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-17312-CII to 17314-CII-2025 in/and CR-1022-2024 (O&M) [6] comply with the direction given in the judgment and decree. It is the said order which is challenged before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reason for not depositing the amount was that the Judgment Debtor had changed the nature of the suit land. Admittedly, no such plea was taken in the reply filed by the present petitioner to the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P-4) and thus, the said plea is apparently an afterthought. Moreover, there is no prima facie proof to show that there has been any change with respect to the nature of the suit land. Further, the suit was instituted by the petitioner in the year 2012 and was pursued for a period of five years when the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017 was passed with respect to the suit land and admittedly, no appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017 taking the above plea has been filed by the petitioner, as has been fairly stated before this Court. In case the petitioner was aggrieved with the decree of specific performance on the plea of change of nature of the suit land then the petitioner should have filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017. The respondent-Judgment Debtor filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of contract for sale dated 24.06.2011 after waiting for a period of six years. 7. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 specifically provides for rescission of contract for sale in a case where decree for specific performance of a contract has been passed and the plaintiff/purchaser has been directed to pay the balance sale consideration PAWAN KUMAR 2025.09.08 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-17312-CII to 17314-CII-2025 in/and CR-1022-2024 (O&M) [7] within a specified period and the plaintiff does not make the payment in that period or any such further period as the Court had ordered, then, the Judgment Debtor/Vendor has a right to seek rescission of the contract. In the present case, admittedly, the amount was not deposited by the petitioner within the time specified in the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017, rather had not even deposited the same for a period of more than six years, nor any extension of time had been sought and thus, the impugned order allowing the application filed by the Judgment Debtor-respondent under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of the contract is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil”, reported as (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329, had observed that the High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was also observed in the said judgment that a statutory amendment with respect to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court’s power under Article 227 but at the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court’s jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence PAWAN KUMAR 2025.09.08 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-17312-CII to 17314-CII-2025 in/and CR-1022-2024 (O&M) [8] in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. It was also observed that the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. 9. Keeping in view the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. 10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order. 05.09.2025 (VIKAS BAHL) Pawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2025.09.08 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document