Civil Appeal No. 5846 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20332 of 2007). Case: Bhupinder Kumar Vs Angrej Singh. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 5846 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20332 of 2007) |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: Bimal Roy Jad, Adv and For the Respondents: Arunima Dewedi, Mary Mitzy, Anil Kaushik and Shiv Prakash Pandey, Advs. |
| Judges | P. Sathasivam and Deepak Verma, JJ. |
| Issue | Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 28 and 28(1); Limitation Act; Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Order 21, Rule 12 |
| Citation | 2010 (2) AWC 1378 (SC) , 2010 (2) MahLJ 1 (SC) , (2009) 8 MLJ 417 (SC) , 2009 (12) SCALE 4 , (2009) 8 SCC 766 , 2009 (9) UJ 4113 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | August 28, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 23.03.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 2972 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the Revision and upheld the order passed by the Executing Court.
3. The appellant entered into an agreement dated 20.11.1990 to purchase land measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas situated within the Revenue Estate of Pehowa. As per the agreement, the total sale consideration of the property was fixed @ Rs. 3,850/- per marla. The vendor had received Rs. 20,000 as earnest money. The sale, as per agreement, was to be executed and registered on or before 20.05.1991.
4. According to the appellant, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In pursuance of the sale agreement dated 20.11.1990, he reached the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pehowa on 20.05.1991 alongwith the balance amount of sale consideration and expenses to get the sale deed executed and registered. Since 20.05.1991 was a holiday on account of Election, the appellant again reached the office of Sub-Registrar, Pehowa on 21.05.1991, but the respondent did not turn up. Subsequently, on 27.05.1991, the appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent requesting him to get the sale deed executed and registered but the respondent again failed to do so. On 13.12.1991, the appellant feeling constrained, filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.11.1990 vide which the respondent had agreed to sell land measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas. By final judgment and order dated 13.10.1998, the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pehowa decreed the suit with costs and directed the respondent to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the appellant qua the suit property at the rate of Rs. 3,850 per marla less the amount of Rs. 20,000 already received by the respondent within a period of three months failing which the appellant shall be at liberty to get the sale deed executed and registered through court.
5. As the respondent failed to get the sale deed executed, on 20.04.2001, the appellant moved an application for extension of time to deposit the balance of sale price in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pehowa in Execution Petition No. 15 of 2001. By order dated 07.05.2002, the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pehowa, dismissed the application for extension of time to deposit the balance sale price and held that the sale agreement stood rescinded as contemplated under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and consequently dismissed the execution petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2002 in the Court of District Judge, Kurukshetra. By judgment and order dated 06.05.2003, the District Judge, Kurukshetra dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed Civil Revision No. 2972 of 2003 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court by judgment and order dated 23.03.2007, dismissed the Revision upholding the order passed by the Executing Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Writ Petition No. 3952 of 2008. Case: Khoobiram Vs Smt. Urmila Chouhan and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...Reliance for this purpose has also been placed on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh (2009) 8 SCC 766 wherein it is 21. It is clear that Section 28 gives power to the Court either to extend the time for compliance with the decree or grant an or......
-
CS(OS)--353/2006. Case: R.S.CHHABRA Vs. GOPAL KRISHAN KAPOOR. High Court of Delhi (India)
...Singh Gulati. Reliance has also been placed upon (1999) 4 SCC 702 V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Vs. C. Alagappan and Another and (2009) 8 SCC 766 Bhupinder Kumar Vs. Angrej CS (OS) No. 353/2006 & Ex. P. No. 232/2007 Page 6 of 38 5 Reply has been filed opposing the application. It is po......
-
I.A. Nos. 2286/2010, 1460/2014, 5310/2014 in CS (OS) 353/2006, Ex. P. 232/2007 & Ex. Appl. (OS) 35/2010. Case: R.S. Chhabra Vs Gopal Krishan Kapoor. High Court of Delhi (India)
... ... debtor under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ... that he was a valid assignee of Rajesh Kumar (defendant No. 6 in that suit) was a false and ... had in fact travelled right up to the Supreme Court and the Apex Court vide its order dated 11.2009 had granted liberty to the present ... /judgment debtor while dismissing the SLP on 20.11.2009, the Supreme Court had refrained ... Court reported as AIR 2004 SC 348 Shyam Singh Vs. Daryao Singh (dead) by Lrs. and Ors. even in ... and Another and (2009) 8 SCC 766 Bhupinder Kumar Vs. Angrej Singh ... 5. Reply has been ... Division Bench on 27.07.2009 dismissed the appeal of defendant No. 6 (Rajesh Kumar) noting the ... ...
-
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 4483 and 4485 of 2010. Case: Agnipalli Hanumantha Rao and Another Vs Vegi Venkata Lakshmi. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...Gangadhara Sharma (1) 1987 (2) ALT 229 and a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh (2) 2009 (8) SCJ 578 = (2009) 8 SCC 766. His second contention which is raised as second point is that even assuming that the executing court has that power, it should have granted ......
-
Writ Petition No. 3952 of 2008. Case: Khoobiram Vs Smt. Urmila Chouhan and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...Reliance for this purpose has also been placed on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh (2009) 8 SCC 766 wherein it is 21. It is clear that Section 28 gives power to the Court either to extend the time for compliance with the decree or grant an or......
-
CS(OS)--353/2006. Case: R.S.CHHABRA Vs. GOPAL KRISHAN KAPOOR. High Court of Delhi (India)
...Singh Gulati. Reliance has also been placed upon (1999) 4 SCC 702 V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Vs. C. Alagappan and Another and (2009) 8 SCC 766 Bhupinder Kumar Vs. Angrej CS (OS) No. 353/2006 & Ex. P. No. 232/2007 Page 6 of 38 5 Reply has been filed opposing the application. It is po......
-
I.A. Nos. 2286/2010, 1460/2014, 5310/2014 in CS (OS) 353/2006, Ex. P. 232/2007 & Ex. Appl. (OS) 35/2010. Case: R.S. Chhabra Vs Gopal Krishan Kapoor. High Court of Delhi (India)
... ... debtor under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ... that he was a valid assignee of Rajesh Kumar (defendant No. 6 in that suit) was a false and ... had in fact travelled right up to the Supreme Court and the Apex Court vide its order dated 11.2009 had granted liberty to the present ... /judgment debtor while dismissing the SLP on 20.11.2009, the Supreme Court had refrained ... Court reported as AIR 2004 SC 348 Shyam Singh Vs. Daryao Singh (dead) by Lrs. and Ors. even in ... and Another and (2009) 8 SCC 766 Bhupinder Kumar Vs. Angrej Singh ... 5. Reply has been ... Division Bench on 27.07.2009 dismissed the appeal of defendant No. 6 (Rajesh Kumar) noting the ... ...
-
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 4483 and 4485 of 2010. Case: Agnipalli Hanumantha Rao and Another Vs Vegi Venkata Lakshmi. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...Gangadhara Sharma (1) 1987 (2) ALT 229 and a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh (2) 2009 (8) SCJ 578 = (2009) 8 SCC 766. His second contention which is raised as second point is that even assuming that the executing court has that power, it should have granted ......