High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/6143/2025dismissed

Paramjit Singh v. Veer Singh And Others

2026-01-12Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal10 pages

# $

% &# !"#$%&

% &#

# '

( &"

)

* &

+ %

#,,- +

( $ "

# &

# # #

.*# +.#/ 0 &

,1 ,1,3 %

) '

.*# % #+ & #4

$56 $ /.*

.# #

# )

* $

# *

)

7 #'8 ,1,3%

),$/.*# +

#''

1, ,1,1 ##

,1 ,1,3$ .*

### *

# &

;

##$ /

. & ,2 1- ,1,< 0 0 #+ #.)

* $

& ) .*

! , 2$

! '/ # #& #)

+ # *

)

(/ .

.# #

) $ / 7 .

)

# >)

. .*

&#.* $ #$/ *

( $

= #

)

0 # >)

+$ /&$ #* #

.# #

& ,1 ,1,3$

)

0 #

#''

1, ,1,1 ###*) .*4!

' ,

! '= #$ /## ##

,1 ,1,3 #:

.# *

$ .

#* $ * $

. #

##/# / .*? :.# + <

(

/## #

#& /

# * .

# &# .

& ?&

# . " $(&#

# # &

# #*)

# &

)

#* .* &

? :.# + (

# /"$ #

# # # #/# / .* ? :.#% )+

V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. C.

Alagappan and Another, (1999) 4 SCC 702$/

? :.# + #

! '- "17. The agreement of sale was entered into as far back on February 16, 1980, about 19 years ago. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the balance amount of consideration could not be deposited within time granted by the court and why no application was made under Section 28 of the Act seeking extension of time of this period. Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 3 years period is prescribed

for filing the suit for specific performance of contract of sale from the date of the agreement or when the cause of action arises. Merely because a suit is filed within the prescribed period of limitation does not absolve the vendee/plaintiff from showing as to whether he was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and if there was non/performance was that on account of any obstacle put by the vendor or otherwise. Provisions to grant specific performance of an agreement are quite stringent. Equitable considerations come into play. Court has to see all the attendant circumstances including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale.

That being the position of law for filing the suit for specific performance, can the court as a matter of course allow extension of time for making payment of balance amount of consideration in terms of a decree after 5 years of passing of the decree by the trial court and 3 years of its confirmation by the appellate court? It is not the case of the respondent/ decree holder that on account of any fault on the part of the vendor/ judgment/ debtor, the amount could not be deposited as per the decree. That being the position, if now time is granted, that would be going beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the suit for specific performance of the agreement though this provision may not be strictly applicable. It is nevertheless an important circumstance to be considered by the Court.

That apart, no explanation whatsoever is coming from the decree/holder/ respondents as to why they did not pay the balance amount of consideration as per the decree except what the High Court itself thought fit to comment which is certainly not borne out from the record. Equity demands that discretion be not exercised in favour of the decree holder/respondents and no extension of time be granted to them to comply with the decree."

# #

.* .

7 ? :.# + (

$ #

# ? :.#% )+

P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Mastha, 2023(2) RCR (Civil) 135$/

! 9$? :.# + # "8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand and considering Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, we are of the opinion that the trial Court erred in exercising the discretion in favour of the plaintiff and erred in extending the time in favour of the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000// by condoning the huge delay of 853 days, which as observed hereinabove has not been explained sufficiently at all. As observed hereinabove, after the plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000// within a period of two weeks from the date of ex/parte judgment and decree dated 12.10.

2013, which the plaintiff failed to deposit/pay, even no application for extension of time under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was made thereafter within a reasonable time and was made after a period of 853 days. Nothing is on record that in between any notice was given to the defendant to execute the sale deed as per the judgment and decree on deposit of the balance sale consideration. The application filed by the plaintiff under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration was hopelessly delayed.

in terms of a decree of specific performance. Therefore, the trial Court failed to exercise the discretion judiciously in favour of the defendant and erred in exercising the discretionary power in favour of the plaintiff, that too with a delay of 853 days. The High Court has erred in confirming the same and dismissing the revision applications. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application of the plaintiff being I.A. No. 732/2016 seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration deserves to be dismissed and I.A. No. 914/2017 filed by the defendant - appellant under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the agreement to sell dated 9.5.2012 deserves to be allowed."

0&#&

#* #

? :.# +

*$#

# # #

Chanda (Dead) v. Rattni, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 534$ /

! '1$? :.#% )+ # "10. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents the stand now taken was not pleaded before the trial Court and the High Court. The decision in Kumar Dhirendra's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. In fact, it has been noted in that case that the decree/holder was repeatedly assured of payment. The situation is not the same here. The only stand taken was that there was no direction to pay within a particular time. This plea is clearly unsustainable and untenable and has been rightly rejected." @

% # )

#*/

& )

#$(&

.*#

# ##*

6 # % # &# & ,1 ,1,3$ >)

+ #

.# #

/ # '@ ,1,< #* /

,2 1- ,1,< 0 ,2 1- ,1,< =4 ! ' ,)

# )

* ₹

'$91$111=# /

A',B

# #

( & # $ #

# " #

)

0 #

/ 7 ) $ / .

$>)

+##/ #:

= ##

7 #*$

'8 ,1,3$>)

/ $ .

#. . ,9

# %

#.*4/ ###* .# &

(

/## .#

* / $ #

(

#$ # ) &# / # '@ ,1,<$

( < 3 ) $

##* # C< 0 #=

##/

0##+

'( ' ) ( ' ' )

',B

1, ,1,1 ##!&.,1,< *+,- ./+0 ! '(' ) 0 #=

,$9<$<11=

.&$

? D.#+ 0 * #''1,,1,1

/ 0 #=

#* # # =

#''

1, ,1,1

#* # >) 2

(

# #/

)

$ >)

/ $ / # " .#

.* $+

/ # * .

* ( $& )

$ # "

.# #

# /

.* $ /

+##/

(

# #/ # # .

#* ##

..# ##* +$ >)

/ / #

( $# >)

+$# "

*.* #$

.# #

#.* $ *#*

/ ..#>)

+ # (

/## #

$ #

*& # &

# % 0 # .*#

.# % #

.# #

# /

# $# >)

### * &

)

#*$

& $

(

# #/.

.*+

# *.

& * .

)

#*$.

.& .

& * # .

#& ''

(

/## #

. + .

##*

$##

##*

# *

7 #

$ ##*

#*$

$ *

$ #$

% &# +1*+2 $.*./ Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No