IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 127 CR-9274-2025 Date of Decision.:17.02.2026 Sukhdev Singh …..Pe00oner Vs. Charanjit Singh .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate, Mr. Sarvesh Raan, Advocate and Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The peoner–decree holder has invoked the revisional jurisdicon of this Court assailing order dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Addional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon in Execuon Case No.1/24, whereby his applicaon under Secon 151 CPC seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideraon, a6er deducng an amount of ₹15,00,000/- along with interest allegedly secured by mortgage, has been dismissed, and the execuon peon has been held to be not maintainable. 2. The factual backdrop is not in dispute. The peoner had instuted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.02.2005. The suit was decreed on 29.11.2012 (Annexure P-2). The operave part of the decree directed the plainff to pay the balance sale consideraon within two months from the date of judgment and decree and, upon such payment, the defendant was required to execute and register the sale deed. In the event of failure of the defendant, the plainff was entled to seek execuon through process of Court. 3. The decree was challenged by the defendant before the first NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9274-2025 -2- Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal on 07.12.2013. The Regular Second Appeal preferred therea6er was dismissed by this Court on 10.05.2016. Thus, the decree dated 29.11.2012 aained finality on 10.05.2016. 4. It is, however, an admied posion that the decree holder did not deposit the balance sale consideraon within the spulated period of two months from the date of decree, i.e. by 29.11.2012. It is equally undisputed that no stay of operaon of the decree was granted during pendency of the appeal, or the Regular Second Appeal. Even a6er dismissal of the RSA on 10.05.2016, the decree holder did not deposit the balance consideraon within a reasonable me. The execuon peon was filed only on 20.12.2023, nearly eight years a6er the decree had aained finality, accompanied by an applicaon seeking permission to deposit the amount at that stage. 5. The learned Execung Court, a6er considering the rival submissions, dismissed the applicaon and held the execuon to be not maintainable. The reasoning recorded by the Execung Court reflects that the decree for specific performance was condional in nature and compliance with the condion of deposit of balance sale consideraon within the prescribed period was a condion precedent for enforcement. It was further noced that no applicaon under Secon 148 CPC or Secon 151 CPC seeking extension of me was moved within a reasonable period. The Court also relied upon the seled principle that specific performance being an equitable relief, the decree holder must demonstrate readiness and willingness even post decree. 6. Learned counsel for the peoner has contended that the judgment debtor had mortgaged the property by raising a loan of ₹15,00,000/- from Punjab and Sind Bank and had also alienated a part of the land on 20.07.2020 in favour of one Manpreet Singh, and therefore he cannot be permied to take advantage of his own wrong. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9274-2025 -3- 7. The contenon does not merit acceptance. 8. A decree for specific performance operates on the principle of mutual and reciprocal obligaons. When the decree expressly directs the plainff to deposit the balance sale consideraon within a specified period, such direcon is not a mere formality but a condion precedent to the enforceability of the decree. Unless the decree holder performs his part or obtains extension of me from the Court, he cannot insist upon performance by the judgment debtor. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramankuy Guptan v. Avara, (1994) 2 SCC 642, has held that where a decree directs deposit of balance sale consideraon within a spulated me, such obligaon becomes a condion precedent, and failure to comply renders the decree in- executable unless extension is granted. Similarly, though in K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. P.S.S. Somasundaram Che%ar, AIR 1980 SC 512, it has been clarified that the Court may extend me in appropriate cases, such discreon is to be exercised where sufficient cause is shown and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. 10. In the present case, the peoner neither deposited the amount within the spulated period nor moved any applicaon seeking extension of me within a reasonable period a6er dismissal of the appeal or even a6er dismissal of the RSA. The silence of nearly eight years a6er the decree aained finality remains unexplained. No cogent reason has been placed on record to jusfy such prolonged inacon. 11. The plea that the property had been mortgaged or partly sold subsequently cannot come to the aid of the peoner. Firstly, there was no stay against execuon of the decree at any stage. The peoner could have deposited the amount and sought enforcement immediately a6er the decree or at least a6er dismissal of the appeal. Secondly, even if a mortgage had been created, the peoner could have approached the Court at the relevant me seeking appropriate direcons for adjustment or NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9274-2025 -4- discharge of the mortgage out of the balance sale consideraon. Such a course has been sought to be adopted only in 2024, long a6er the decree became final. 12. Equally, the subsequent sale of part of the land in 2020 cannot revive a decree, which had remained unenforced due to non-compliance of its foundaonal condion. A party cannot rely upon subsequent acts of the judgment debtor to cure his own prolonged default. 13. The power of the Court under Secon 148 CPC to extend me is discreonary and is to be exercised judicially. Such discreon cannot be invoked mechanically to condone inordinate delay or to revive a decree rendered in-executable by non-fulfillment of its essenal condion. The conduct of the decree holder in remaining inacve for years militates against exercise of equitable discreon in his favour. 14. The Execung Court has not traveled behind the decree. It has merely examined whether the decree had become enforceable in the absence of compliance with the condion precedent. The reasoning recorded is in consonance with seled principles governing execuon of decrees for specific performance. 15. In the absence of any jurisdiconal error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order, no interference is warranted. As such, finding no merit, the present peon stands dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 17, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document