Leelawati vs Rameshwar

CR-5834-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
153 CR-5834-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.09.2026
Leelawati
....Petitioner
Vs.
Rameshwar
....Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*
HARSH BUNGER J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed, under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 21.05.2026
(Annexure P-13) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Palwal, in the execution petition bearing No. EXE-134-2024,
whereby the application filed by the respondent, seeking permission to
deposit the outstanding loan amount of Rs.14,90,515/- (out of total balance
sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-) in respect of the suit property with the
Faridabad District Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development
Bank Limited, Palwal, and to further allow the decree holder to deposit the
balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,10,685/- (after adjusting the costs of
Rs.1,98,800/-), has been allowed.
2. Briefly, the respondent/plaintiff (Rameshwar) filed a suit for
specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.01.2015 against the
ANKIT
2026.09.15 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5834-2026 (O&M) -2-
present petitioner/defendant (Smt. Leelawati) on the plea that the present
petitioner had entered into the aforesaid agreement to sell in respect of the
suit property i.e. a residential house measuring 200 square yards, situated at
Panchwati Colony in Mauja Palwal; for a total sale consideration of Rs. 60
lakhs, out of which Rs. 40 lakhs was given, and the balance sale
consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed,
wherein the target date was fixed as 19.12.2015.
2.1 Concededly, the suit for specific performance filed by the
respondent/plaintiff came to be decreed by the learned Additional Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2024
(Annexure P-2). Further, an appeal filed by the petitioner against the Trial
Court judgment and decree dated 08.05.2024 has also been dismissed by the
learned District Judge, Palwal, vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2026
(Annexure P-11). Even a further regular second appeal (RSA No. 1855 of
2026) filed by the petitioner stands dismissed by this Court vide judgment
dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-12).
2.2 It transpires that during the pendency of the appeal before the
learned First Appellate Court, the respondent/plaintiff (decree holder)
initiated proceedings for execution of the judgment and decree dated
08.05.2024 (Annexure P-2). In the said execution petition, the present
petitioner filed his objections, which were dismissed vide order dated
04.09.2025 (Annexure P-5).
2.3 On the other hand, the respondent-plaintiff (decree holder) filed
an application dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) before the learned
Executing Court seeking permission to deposit the balance sale
ANKIT
2026.09.15 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5834-2026 (O&M) -3-
consideration after adjusting the requisite costs. Subsequently, the decree
holder filed another application on 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-7), seeking
permission to deposit the outstanding loan amount of Rs.14,90,515/- (out of
the total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-) in respect of the property in
question with the Faridabad District Primary Co-operative Agriculture and
Rural Development Bank Limited, and to further allow the decree holder to
deposit remaining sale consideration of Rs.3,10,685/- (after deducting
outstanding loan amount of Rs.14,90,515/-) and also adjusting the costs of
Rs.1,98,800/-.
2.4 It transpires that on 04.12.2025, the decree holder withdrew his
application dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) and pressed his application
dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-7), which has been allowed vide impugned
order dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure P-13).
3. Feeling aggrieved, the present civil revision petition has been
filed before this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the paperbook with his able assistance.
5. The aforementioned factual position is not disputed.
6. Concededly, the suit for specific performance filed by the
respondent/plaintiff was decreed by the learned Trial court, which has been
further affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court as well as this Court
vide judgment dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-12).
7. In the execution proceedings initiated by the
respondent/plaintiff, an application (Annexure P-7) has been filed by the
ANKIT
2026.09.15 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5834-2026 (O&M) -4-
respondent-plaintiff (decree holder), the relevant extract whereof reads as
under:-
“2. That now after verifying the revenue record in respect of
property in question, the applicant/decree holder came to
know that on 08.11.2010 the son of JD namely Sh. Pratap
Singh son of Sh. Prasadi Lal has availed loan facility of
Rs.6,00,000/- from The Faridabad Distt. Primary Co-Op.
Agri. & Rural Development Bank Ltd., B.O. Palwal by
mortgaging the property in question of JD and the
original sale deed in respect of property in question is
also held with the concern bank, Entry to this effect was
also made in the record of jamabandi in respect of
property in question. As on 09.09.2025 an amount of Rs.
14,90,515/- is outstanding towards the above said loan
account. Regarding outstanding of loan the concern bank
has issued a certificate dated 09.09.2025.
3. That without paying the remaining loan amount to the
concern bank, the above said bank cannot issue the NOC
in respect of the property in question and entry cannot be
deleted from the revenue record also. Without obtaining
NOC it is not possible to get execute and register the sale
deed in respect of the property in question.
4. That the applicant be allowed to deposit the outstanding
loan amount of Rs. 14,90,515/- out of the agreed sale
consideration with concern bank i.e. The Faridabad
Distt. Primary Co-Op. Agri. & Rural Development Bank
Ltd., B.O. Palwal.
5. That the applicant be also allowed to deposit the
remaining sale consideration amount of Rs.3,10,685/-
(after adjusting cost of Rs.1,98,800/-+14,90,515/-
outstanding loan amount)
It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly be
allowed by granting permission to the applicant to deposit the
ANKIT
2026.09.15 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5834-2026 (O&M) -5-
outstanding loan amount of Rs.14,90,515/- (out of agreed sale
consideration) with The Faridabad Distt. Primary Co-Op. Agri.
& Rural Development Bank Ltd., B.O. Palwal and to deposit
the remaining sale consideration of Rs.3,10,685/- after
adjusting cost of Rs.1,98,800/-, in the interest of justice.”
7.1 Although the present petitioner/defendant has opposed the
aforesaid application (Annexure P-7) by filing his reply (Annexure P-9),
however, the learned Executing Court has allowed the application (Annexure
P-7) filed by the respondent/plaintiff vide impugned order dated 21.05.2026
(Annexure P-13), the relevant extract of which reads as under:-
“7. Therefore, the decree dated 08.05.2024 passed by the
Trial Court and as affirmed by the Appellate Court, is now
sought to be executed through the present execution
proceedings. However, during the course of execution
proceedings, it has transpired, as informed by the DH/plaintiff,
that the suit property is under financial encumbrance/loan
liability with the concerned bank i.e. The Faridabad District
Primary Co-op. Agri. & Rural Development Bank Ltd., as the
son of the JD namely Pratap Singh had availed loan facility to
the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- on 08.11.2010 against the suit
property.
Certificate to that effect issued by the concerned Bank,
has been arinexed by the DH/plaintiff with the present
application.
8. It is true that the Agreement to Sell dated 20.01.2015
does not contain any specific recital regarding the subsisting
loan liability or encumbrance over the suit property. However,
that circumstance does not dilute the binding effect of the
Judgment and Decree dated 08.05.2024. which have since
attained finality upon dismissal of the appeal preferred by the
JD. The decree is required to be implemented in its true letter
and spirit. The DH/plaintiff, having successfully established his
ANKIT
2026.09.15 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5834-2026 (O&M) -6-
rights before both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court,
cannot be deprived of the fruits of the decree on account of an
encumbrance which presently Impedes its effective execution.
Unless the loan amount of Rs. 14,90,515/- outstanding
against the suit property as on 09.09.2025. is cleared and the
said liability is discharged, the charge/lien of the concerned
Bank shall continue to be reflected in the revenue records,
thereby creating a substantial impediment. in execution and
registration of the Sale Deed. Therefore, permitting the
DH/plaintiff to clear the outstanding liability would facilitate
effective Implementation of the decree and advance, the ends of
justice.
9. The objection raised by the JD that the DH failed to
deposit the balance sale consideration within the period of
three months stipulated in the Judgment dated 08.05.2024 is
devoid of merit.
In this regard, reference may be made to Section 28 of the
Specific Relief Act , which vests the Court with ample discretion
to extend. the time for payment of the balance sale
consideration in appropriate cases.
10. Furthermore , a perusal of the Judgment and Decree
dated 08.05.2024 reveals that although the DH was directed to
pay the balance sale consideration within three months, but no
consequence, much less automatic rescission of the contract or
forfeiture of rights under the decree, was prescribed by the
Court in the event of non-compliance within the said period.
11. Moreso, recently in cases titled as " Dr. Amit Arya Versus
Kamlesh Kumari", 2025 live law (SC) 1240, and "Ram Lal
Versus Jarnail Singh", 2025 SCC Online (SC) 103, and,
"Anand Narayan Shukla Versus Jagat Dhari" Civil Appeal
No. 7355/2026 decided on 08.05.2026 , it has been emphasized
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere delay by the plaintiff in
depositing balance sale consideration will not automatically
ANKIT
2026.09.15 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5834-2026 (O&M) -7-
render the specific performance decree as inexecutable, unless
the conduct of the DH demonstrates a clear abandonment or
refusal to perform his obligations. The real test is to see if the
conduct of the plaintiff will amount to a positive refusal to
complete his part of the contract.
In the present case , admittedly out of the total sale
consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/-, a substantial amount of Rs.
40,00,000/- had already been paid by the plaintiff to the
defendant as earnest money/part consideration. Further, the
present execution petition was instituted on 17.08.2024 i.e.
shortly after the passing of the decree dated 08.05.2024. The
DH thereafter contested the appeal preferred by the JD, which
ultimately, culminated in affirmation of the decree. Further, it
has been consistently asserted on behalf of the DH that despite
repeated requests, the JD failed to cooperate in completion of
the transaction and declined to accept the balance sale
consideration.
These circumstances demonstrate that the delay in
completion of the transaction is attributable to the conduct of
the JD and not to any lack of readiness or willingness on the
part of the DH
12. In addition to the above, it is worth noting that the suit
property was admittedly subject to a subsisting mortgage/loan
liability with the concerned Bank since the year 2010. However,
neither was this material fact disclosed by the JD/defendant in
the Agreement to Sell dated 20.01.2015, nor was any disclosure
made during the course of the trial proceedings. Even during
the appellate proceedings, the JD/defendant did not bring the
existence of the said encumbrance to the notice of the Court.
The conduct of the JD, therefore, does not appear to be
bona fide. Rather, it reflects a conscious suppression of material
facts and an attempt to withhold information essential for
complete and effective adjudicator of the dispute. A party who
ANKIT
2026.09.15 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5834-2026 (O&M) -8-
has remained silent regarding a material encumbrance
throughout the contractual and judicial proceedings cannot
subsequently be permitted to derive advantage from the
complications arising out of its own concealment.
Viewed from this perspective, the present impediment in
execution is substantially attributable to the conduct of the JD
himself. Consequently, the objection regarding non-deposit of
the balance sale consideration cannot be examined in isolation,
detached from the fact that the suit property remained
encumbered by a prior mortgage, a material information
withheld by the JD/defendant throughout Court proceedings.
Equity does not permit a party to take advantage of its
own wrong. and the JD cannot be allowed to frustrate the
execution of a decree by relying upon circumstances brought
about, at least in part, by his own suppression of material facts.
13. Accordingly, the present application is hereby allowed .
The DH is permitted to deposit/pay the outstanding loan
amount directly to the concerned Bank after obtaining an
authenticated statement of account regarding the dues currently
outstanding against the suit property. Any amount so deposited
by the DH towards liquidation of the said liability, shall be duly
accounted for and adjusted towards the balance sale
consideration, which the DH/plaintiff is permitted to pay in the
Treasury as per rules.
14. Now, to come up on 16.07.2026 for awaiting report of
DH regarding the deposit of the above-referred amounts i.e.
pending loan amount, as well as, balance sale consideration
(after adjusting the cost and loan amourit paid), in the
concerned Bank and Treasury, respectively.”
8. I have carefully gone through the impugned order dated
21.05.2026 (Annexure P-13). Concededly, the decree dated 08.05.2024
(Annexure P-2) for specific performance of agreement to sell dated
ANKIT
2026.09.15 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5834-2026 (O&M) -9-
20.01.2015 in favour of the present respondent/plaintiff (as affirmed by the
learned First Appellate Court as well as this Court) is required to be
implemented in its true letter and spirit.
8.1 It has come on record that the suit property is under financial
encumbrance/loan liability with the Faridabad District Primary Co-operative
Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited by the son of the
petitioner namely Pratap Singh, by availing loan facility to the tune of
Rs.6,00,000/- on 08.11.2010. The said loan liability was outstanding on the
date when the execution proceedings had been initiated by the present
respondent/plaintiff.
9. In my considered view, unless and until the outstanding loan
amount is cleared and the liability is discharged, the lien of the concerned
Bank would continue, thereby creating an impediment in the execution of
decree dated 08.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), as affirmed upto this Court and
also the registration of the sale deed of the suit property in favor of the
plaintiff/decree holder. Further, since the petitioner (judgment debtor) has
failed to discharge the loan liability existing on suit property, therefore,
permitting the plaintiff/decree holder to clear the outstanding loan liability
would facilitate effective implementation of the decree and advancing the
ends of justice.
9.1 The petitioner cannot be permitted to frustrate the decree dated
08.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) which has been affirmed by this Court, on
account of an encumbrance created by petitioner herself, moreso when the
petitioner has failed to disclose the said encumbrance in the agreement to
sell dated 20.01.2015, nor the said fact has been disclosed during the course
ANKIT
2026.09.15 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5834-2026 (O&M) -10-
of the trial or during the appellate proceedings. Evidently, the conduct of the
petitioner is not above board.
10. Considering the totality of circumstances, I see no cogent
reason which may call for any interference by this Court in the impugned
order dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure P-13). In the attending circumstances,
learned Trial Court was justified in passing order dated 21.05.2026
(Annexure P-13).
11. Resultantly, the present civil revision petition fails and the same
is accordingly, dismissed .
12. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
11.09.2026 JUDGE
Ankit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ANKIT
2026.09.15 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh