Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHAN LAL versus SAT PAL & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Krishan Lal v. Sat Pal & Ors - CR-5171-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 2285 (4 April 2006)

Civil Revision No. 5171 of 2004 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No. 5171 of 2004

Date of Decision: April 21, 2006

Krishan Lal .........Petitioner

versus

Sat Pal and others ..........Respondents Present:- Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the respondents.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 24.07.2004, 9.8.2004 and 25.8.2004 passed by the learned Executing Court arising out of the decree in a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 5.6.1991.

The plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 5.6.1991 in respect of seven plots measuring 48 Kanals 2 Marlas. The said land was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per acre. A sum of Rs.70,000/- was paid as earnest money. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was kept with the prospective vendee on account of mortgage amount payable to one Amar Nath. It was also mentioned in the agreement that the vendor has liability towards Punjab and Sind Bank and towards Haryana Khadi Board. The amount due to the Punjab and Sind Bank was agreed to be paid by the Civil Revision No. 5171 of 2004 [2]

prospective vendee. It was also stipulated in the agreement that the balance amount i.e., after adjusting Rs.70,000/- and the amount of the loan mentioned above, would be paid to the vendor at the time of execution of sale deed. The last date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 31.10.1992.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- was paid on different dates including the amount of earnest money before the stipulated date of execution of sale deed. Since the sale deed was not executed on the stipulated date, a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale was filed on 18.11.1992. The said suit was decreed on 26.08.1998 on the condition of payment of Rs.1,61,733.70 as the balance amount payable to the defendant-petitioner.

The appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court on 5.10.2001. Second appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 8-7-2004, Annexure P-1. A perusal of the said order shows that the plaintiff has shown his readiness and willingness to deposit the entire amount taken from the Punjab and Sind Bank and Haryana Khadi Board within a period of one month. The sale deed was to be executed within 15 days thereafter.

Thereafter on 24.07.2004, the learned Executing Court passed an order on the objections filed by one of the guarantors of the petitioner in loan account with Punjab & Sind Bank. The objector moved an application for issuing refund voucher of Rs.57,378/- in favour of Haryana Khadi Board when the learned Executing Court adjourned the case to 9.8.2004 to await the deposit by the decree holder in terms of the offer made before this Court.

On 9.8.2004, the Executing Court passed an order that as the entire amount is stated to have been paid by the decree holder, in view of order dated Civil Revision No. 5171 of 2004 [3]

8.7.2004 of this Court, time was given to the parties to get the sale deed registered. On 25.08.2004, the learned Executing Court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute the sale deed in favour of decree holder. It may be noticed that the petitioner herein moved CM No.8001-C of 2004 before this Court in appeal against the judgment and decree for recalling the order dated 8.7.2004. The said application was dismissed on 26.10.2004.

However, on the said date this Court also decided Civil Revision No. 4240 of 2004 filed by the guarantors in the loan account of the petitioner with the Punjab and Sind Bank. The petitioner has sought recall of the order on the ground that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has been deposited by the guarantors but the respondents have not paid any amount to the Punjab and Sind Bank as per directions given by this Court. This Court found that since the revision petitioner i.e., guarantors have deposited the amount without waiting for the last date for making payment by the decree holder, it cannot be said that the respondents have failed to make deposit as per directions of this Court. Subsequently, the petitioner herein moved another application for recalling of the order dated 26.10.2004. In the said application, it was found that the decree holder has not only paid to Punjab and Sind Bank, Ambala, as well as Haryana Khadi Board, but has also paid the entire balance consideration to the appellant after deducting the amount already paid to him earlier. This Court held to the following effect:- " After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 has not only paid the Punjab and Sind Bank, Ambala, as well as the Haryana Khadi Board but has also paid the entire balance consideration to the appellant after deducting the amount already paid to him Civil Revision No. 5171 of 2004 [4]

earlier. Thus, there is no ground to recall the impugned order.

However, as respondent No.2 is ready and willing to pay the entire amount paid by the appellant to the Punjab & Sind Bank, Ambala, in order to settle all kinds of disputes, therefore, the respondent is directed to pay the appellant the amount paid by him to the Punjab & Sind Bank, Ambala, in order to settle all kinds of disputes, therefore, the respondent is directed to pay the appellant the amount paid by him to the Punjab & Sind Bank, Ambala, within a period of three months from today.

With the aforementioned modification in the order dated 8.7.2004, the review application is disposed of".

A perusal of the said order shows that the respondents were directed to pay the appellant the amount paid by him to the Punjab & Sind Bank within a period of three months. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in terms of the said order a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- has been deposited by the respondents as the amount payable to the petitioner in terms of the said order. Learned counsel for the respondents also states that a sum of Rs.1,61,733.70 as found due and payable by the decree holder by the learned trial Court has also been deposited on 10.09.1998. Therefore, the respondents have deposited the entire sale consideration as agreed in the agreement to sell and also another sum of Rs.2,60,000/- in terms of the order passed by this Court. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Executing Court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by the guarantors to the bank on behalf of Civil Revision No. 5171 of 2004 [5]

the petitioner but the respondent decree holder states that it was a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- which was paid to the bank and, therefore, the said amount alone was required to be deposited.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the entire dispute revolves around the issue whether an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited on behalf of the petitioner or a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-. The other controversy sought to be raised by the petitioner do not survive in view of the order passed by this Court on 31.05.2005.

Therefore, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Executing Court to determine whether a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited on behalf of the petitioner or a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- as asserted by the respondents. The learned Executing Court is directed to decide the said question alone as no other dispute survives between the parties.

Decree holder shall furnish surety bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- before the learned Executing Court within two weeks from today. On furnishing of such security, the Executing Court shall execute the decree for possession forthwith.

April 21, 2006 ( HEMANT GUPTA )

ks JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.