IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 130 CR-3974-2026 Date of Decision.:11.05.2026 Kuldeep Chand …..Pe00oner Vs. Kesar Singh (deceased) through LRs .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Anshul Muwal, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The peoner has filed the present revision peon assailing the order dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Addional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khamanon, whereby the applicaon filed by the peoner seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideraon amount of ₹55,000/- came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the peoner had instuted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.12.2005. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2014. The defendant-respondent was directed to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plainff a8er receiving the balance sale consideraon within a period of three months from the date of decree. It was further directed that in case the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the plainff would be entled to get the decree executed through Court by filing execuon proceedings and by deposing the requisite amount. 3. The record further reveals that a8er passing of the decree, the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3974-2026 peoner moved applicaons in the years 2014 and 2016 seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideraon, however, the same were withdrawn. Therea8er, no effecve steps were taken for several years and the present applicaon seeking permission to deposit the amount was moved only in the year 2025, almost 11 years a8er passing of the decree. The said applicaon has been dismissed by the Execung Court vide the impugned order. 4. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the peoner submits that once the suit for specific performance stood decreed in favour of the peoner, the Court ought to have exercised its discreon to permit deposit of the balance sale consideraon so as to advance the cause of substanal jusce. It is contended that the decree- holder cannot be non-suited merely on account of delay in deposing the amount. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the peoner and has gone through the impugned order as well as the material available on record. 6. The learned Execung Court has passed a detailed and well- reasoned order while declining the prayer made by the peoner. The observaons recorded therein clearly demonstrate that despite the decree specifically requiring the balance sale consideraon to be paid within three months from the date of decree, the peoner failed to either tender the amount to the judgment-debtor or deposit the same before the Court within the spulated period. 7. Even when execuon proceedings were iniated earlier in the year 2016, the peoner failed to deposit the amount despite specific direcons issued by the Execung Court and ulmately withdrew the execuon peon in the year 2019. Therea8er again, no steps whatsoever Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3974-2026 were taken for about six years. 8. The conduct of the peoner thus reflects complete lack of diligence and readiness to comply with the obligaons flowing from the decree. In a decree for specific performance, the obligaon of the decree- holder to pay or tender the balance sale consideraon within the me spulated in the decree is not an empty formality. The readiness and willingness to perform the essenal terms of the contract is a foundaonal requirement not only at the stage of suit but also during execuon of the decree. 9. The contenon raised on behalf of the peoner that no specific period for deposit was menoned in the decree and therefore the amount could be deposited at any me within the period prescribed for execuon of the decree, is wholly misconceived. A conjoint reading of the decree clearly indicates that the sale deed was to be executed within three months on receipt of balance sale consideraon. Consequently, the obligaon to tender or pay the balance amount necessarily had to be fulfilled within the said period. The execuon period of twelve years prescribed under law cannot be interpreted to indefinitely extend the substanve obligaon imposed under the decree itself. 10. The learned Execung Court has rightly observed that even if it were assumed that the judgment-debtor failed to execute the sale deed, sll no plausible explanaon has been furnished by the peoner as to why the amount was neither deposited in the earlier execuon proceedings nor therea8er for almost 11 years and 10 months. Such unexplained and inordinate delay disentles the peoner from seeking discreonary relief from the Court. 11. It is trite law that a person seeking equitable relief of specific performance must himself act equitably and demonstrate connuous bona Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3974-2026 fides. The discreonary jurisdicon of the Court cannot be invoked in favour of a ligant who has remained grossly negligent and inacve for years together. 12. This Court, therefore, finds no illegality, jurisdiconal error or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Execung Court warranng interference in exercise of revisional jurisdicon. 13. Consequently, the present revision peon being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 11, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document