Gurmukh Singh Bahra vs Naresh Kumar

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed by plaintiff Gurmukh Singh Bahra under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-3 filed by the plaintiff for extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration, in compliance with judgment and decree dated 23.08.2012 (Annexure P-2). Suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against defendant-respondent Naresh Kumar was decreed, vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 23.08.2012 (Annexure P-2), for possession of the suit property by specific performance of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration within two months, failing which the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

In application Annexure P-3, the plaintiff alleged that he applied for certified copy of judgment and decree Annexure P-2 on 12.02.2013 and the same was prepared on 26.02.2013 and delivery thereof was taken on 02.03.2013 and thereupon, the plaintiff learnt that he had to deposit the balance sale consideration within two months, which period had expired. Trial court has dismissed the aforesaid application Annexure P-3, vide order Annexure P-1, which is under challenge in the instant revision petition.

Notice issued to respondent received unserved as residing abroad. However, counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that notice of the revision petition is not required to be issued to defendant-respondent because the suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and decree Annexure P-2 and defendant-respondent was also not represented in the trial court, when impugned order Annexure P-1 was passed. Accordingly, the service of respondent is dispensed with.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the version of the petitioner stated in application Annexure P-3, as mentioned hereinbefore and prayed for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration.

I have carefully considered the matter.

The defendant-respondent did not contest the suit, which was decreed ex-parte. The plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree passed in his favour merely because there was some delay on his part in depositing the balance sale consideration. The defendant-respondent could have been compensated with costs, had he been contesting the lis. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for extension of time is allowed, on deposit of costs with Legal Services Authority.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court is set aside. Application Annexure P-3, filed by plaintiff-petitioner, is allowed and he is permitted to deposit the balance sale consideration within one month from today, failing which the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. This order is subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000/- as costs by the plaintiff-petitioner, with Sub Divisional Legal Services Authority, Phagwara.