IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 111 CR-3697-2026 Date of Decision.:01.05.2026 Dharamveer Singh …..Pe//oner Vs. Sher Singh .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vishneet Singh Kathpal, Advocate for the peoner. (through Video Conferencing). **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision peon has been preferred by the peoner–decree holder assailing the order dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P- 10) passed by the learned Addional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, whereby the applicaon filed by him seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideraon and to implement the decree for specific performance has been dismissed. 2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the peoner had instuted a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell, which came to be decreed on 09.05.2019 (Annexure P-1). As per the terms of the decree, the defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plainff within a period of one month, failing which the plainff was held entled to get the sale deed executed through the process of Court upon deposit of the balance sale consideraon of ₹4,20,000/-. 3. It is not in dispute that the peoner (decree holder) failed to deposit the aforesaid amount within the spulated period. Even therea<er, no steps were taken within a reasonable me to comply with the decree. Rather, a<er a lapse of about seven years, the peoner moved an NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3697-2026 applicaon before the execung Court seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideraon on the plea that the non-deposit earlier was on account of inadvertence and miscommunicaon. 4. The said applicaon was contested by the respondent and, upon consideraon of the ma>er, the learned trial Court dismissed the same holding that the peoner had failed to comply with the decree within the prescribed me, that the execuon peon filed earlier had already been dismissed, and that no order granng extension of me had been passed by any superior Court. 5. Assailing the above order, learned counsel for the peoner has argued that the decree for specific performance subsists and that the Court retains discreon to extend the me for deposit of the balance sale consideraon. It is contended that refusal to permit such deposit results in denial of substanve relief granted under the decree. 6. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned order. 7. It is no doubt true that in a decree for specific performance, the Court possesses the discreon to extend me for deposit of the balance sale consideraon. However, such discreon is equitable in nature and is to be exercised on sound judicial principles. A party seeking such indulgence must demonstrate bona fides and sufficient cause for non- compliance within me. 8. In the present case, the conduct of the peoner does not inspire confidence. The delay in seeking permission is not of a few days or months, but of about seven years. The explanaon offered is vague and wholly insufficient. No material has been placed on record to show that the peoner was prevented by any compelling circumstance from complying with the decree within the spulated period or even within a reasonable me therea<er. Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3697-2026 9. Significantly, the execuon proceedings iniated by the peoner had already been dismissed. Once the execuon peon has been dismissed and no challenge thereto has been shown to have been successfully pursued, the peoner cannot be permi>ed to circumvent the effect of such dismissal by filing an applicaon of the present nature. PermiGng such a course would amount to unse>ling finality of judicial proceedings. 10. Further, the peoner has not been able to point out any order passed by an appellate Court or by this Court extending the me for deposit of the balance sale consideraon. In the absence of such extension, the rights flowing from the decree cannot be kept alive indefinitely at the instance of a negligent decree holder. 11. The learned trial Court has, thus, rightly held that the applicaon filed by the peoner was not maintainable and that no ground was made out for granng permission to deposit the balance amount at such a belated stage. The findings recorded are based on proper appreciaon of the record and do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 12. It is well se>led that the revisional jurisdicon of this Court is limited in scope and is not to be exercised as if it were an appellate jurisdicon. Unless the impugned order is shown to be perverse or suffering from jurisdiconal error, interference is not warranted. No such infirmity has been pointed out in the present case. 13. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision peon, the same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 01, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document