IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 CR-3874-2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025 ANANT RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES …..PETITIONER Vs. JAGMAL SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the peoner. ******* DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present revision peon filed under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India has been filed to assail the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Addional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the applicaon under Secon 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 filed peoner-plainff was dismissed. 2. Civil Suit No. 303-2008 was filed by Jagmal Singh (respondent through his legal representaves herein) seeking possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.12.2006. The suit was decreed on 31.07.2014 (Annexure P-1), direcng the defendant–Anant Ram (peoner through his legal representaves herein) to execute and register the sale deed within two months. 3. The defendant preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court granted stay on 11.09.2014. However, the appeal was dismissed on 06.04.2018 for non-payment of court fees. A prior revision peon (CR No. 4349 of 2016) against the order dated 27.05.2016, declining the defendant's indigency applicaon under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC, was also dismissed by this Court on 19.02.2018 (Annexure P-2). PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3874-2025 4. Post dismissal of the appeal, the decree-holder iniated execuon proceedings and filed an applicaon seeking disclosure of encumbrances on the suit property so it could be transferred free from liabilies. 5. In response, the peoners moved an applicaon under Secon 28 of the Specific Relief Act, contending that the plainff had failed to deposit the balance sale consideraon within two months of the decree, thereby jusfying rescission of the agreement and dismissal of the suit. This applicaon was rejected by the trial Court, leading to the present revision. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for the peoners that a decree for specific performance is a preliminary decree and the suit is deemed to remain pending. He submits that under Secon 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court has discreon to either the extend me or rescind the agreement. Since the decree-holder allegedly failed to deposit the sale consideraon within the spulated period, the trial Court erred in rejecng the applicaon. 7. A@er hearing the submissions and perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the contenon. The trial Court, while dismissing the applicaon, rightly observed that the decree dated 31.07.2014 did not direct the plainff to deposit the balance sale consideraon within any fixed me. The only direcon was for the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months. Relying on Nispal Kaur v. Kulwant Singh, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 562 and Tara Singh v. Ravinderpal Singh, 2007(1) PLJ 486, it was correctly held that where the decree does not spulate me for deposit, the decree-holder cannot be debarred from execung the decree merely for not deposing the sale consideraon along with the execuon applicaon. 8. The trial Court further noted that while the peoners claimed to have issued a legal noce dated 02.08.2018 for execuon of the sale deed on 16.08.2018, the decree-holder, Jagmal Singh, had already expired on 03.06.2018. The noce was returned unserved with an endorsement of the recipient’s death which a fact not disputed by the peoners. Page 2 of 3 PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3874-2025 9. Moreover, it was the peoners who failed to pursue their appeal due to non-payment of Court fees and had also earlier sought indigency under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC. On the other hand, the decree-holder had taken proacve steps by seeking informaon about exisng encumbrances to facilitate execuon. It is also worth nong that a substanal loan existed on the suit property, which the defendant failed to clear, despite entering into the agreement to sell. 10. The trial Court rightly relied on Ved Singh (since deceased) through LRs v. Rameshwar (since deceased) through LRs, 2024 (1) PLR 551, where it was held that where the decree-holder is prompt in seeking execuon of decree and permission to deposit the balance consideraon amount, the decree remains executable, and delay aBributable to pendency of court proceedings cannot be held against the decree-holder. 11. This Court also places reliance on Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. S.K. Mal- hotra, Civil Revision No. 792 of 1999 decided on 19.08.1999 reported in (1999) 08 P&H CK 0071, wherein it was held that once the decree is stayed by the appellate court, the me prescribed in the decree ceases to run, and resumes only upon dismissal of the appeal. Accordingly, a decree-holder cannot be faulted for not deposing the sale consideraon during the period of stay. 12. In the light of the above facts and seBled legal posion, this Court finds no error, illegality, or perversity in the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the applicaon under Secon 28 of the Specific Relief Act, which appears to have been filed merely to evade the execuon of a binding decree. 13. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present peon, the same is hereby dismissed. 04.07.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Pry JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document