Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh vs Satish Kumar on 24 February, 2026
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-3336-2015 (O&M)
Reserved on: January 22, 2026
Date of Pronouncement: February 24, 2026
Uploaded on: February 24, 2026
Paramjit Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Satish Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.Yashdeep Nain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal and Mr.Ojas Bansal, Advocates
for the respondent.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
Challenge in the revision petition is to the order dated
19.11.2014 passed by learned Executing Court, whereby, the objections filed
by the respondent-judgment debtor, in the execution petition, were allowed
and the execution petition was dismissed.
In pursuance of the notice issued, the respondent- judgment
debtor made appearance through counsel.
The background facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-
That, the petitioner, is the original plaintiff-decree holder (hereinafter
referred as petitioner only). He instituted a suit for specific performance of
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -2-the agreement to sell dated 11.01.2002 against the respondent-original
defendant- judgment debtor (hereinafter referred as respondent only). The
suit was instituted on 14.06.2005 and it came to be decreed on 12.12.2009.
In the said decree, the petitioner was directed to pay balance sale
consideration to the respondent or to deposit the same in the Court, within a
period of two months, from the date of decree, failing which, his suit shall
stand dismissed automatically. The respondent had filed an appeal against
the said judgment and decree on 20.01.2010 and the same was dismissed
vide judgment dated 13.08.2012.
On 30.08.2012, an application was filed, at the instance of the
petitioner before the concerned District Judge, to deposit the balance sale
consideration. In view of the order passed by the concerned District Judge,
the balance sale consideration amount was deposited by the petitioner before
the Court on 31.08.2012. Execution petition was filed by the petitioner on
03.11.2012 and on 05.11.2012, the Regular Second Appeal, came to be
dismissed. On 31.05.2013, the review application was dismissed. On
19.11.2014, the impugned order was passed, whereby, the objection petition
was allowed and the execution petition was dismissed.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the
revision petition in hand.
Counsel for the parties heard.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that even though, two months’ period was granted by the trial
Court to deposit the balance sale consideration, but however, the appeal was
filed to challenge the decree and therefore, it being continuation of the
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -3-
litigation, the same came to be dismissed and therein, the time was not
mandated to deposit the balance sale consideration, which fact, as such, has
not been considered by the Executing Court. It is further submitted that soon
after the dismissal of the appeal, the requisite amount was deposited. The
decree of the Appellate Court would be considered to be a decree passed by
the Court of first instance. Thus, it is contended that by the doctrine of
merger, when the Appellate Court had not specified the time limit for the
deposit of the balance sale consideration, considering the deposit made, soon
after the dismissal of the appeal, the executing Court, could not have
allowed the objections and dismiss the execution petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Ramakutty Gupta
vs. Avara, 1994 AIR (SC) 1699, wherein, while considering the case, where
the judgment debtor had filed the petition in the executing Court to rescind
the contract, on the plea that the respondent-plaintiff had committed default
in depositing the sale consideration, within the prescribed period by the
appellate decree. The judgment debtor had carried the matter in second
appeal to the High Court and the respondent-decree holder, deposited the
amount, after the time fixed by the Appellate Court, but before the second
appeal was dismissed.
In the aforesaid case, the Court relied upon the judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Kalpana Saraswathi vs. P.S.S.
Somasudaram Chettiar, 1980(2) SCR 293, wherein, it was held that the
decree of the Appellate Court would be construed to be the decree passed by
the Court of first instance. It is a settled law that the appeal is a continuation
of the suit. Therefore, when a decree of specific performance was dismissed
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -4-
by the trial Court, but decreed by the Appellate Court, it should be construed
to be in the same suit. When the decree specifies the time for performance
of the conditions of the decree, on its failure to deposit the money, Section
28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, gives power to the Court to extend the time,
on such terms, as the Court may allow to pay purchase money or any other
sum, which the Court had ordered him to pay. In the said case, also it was
held that on the oral prayer made by the counsel, the Court directed the
appellant to deposit the amount. Also therein, it was held that application
for extension of time for payment, may be filed, even in the Court of first
instance or in the Appellate Court, in the same suit, as the decree of the trial
Court stands merged with that of the Appellate Court, which decree is in
execution. While the second appeal was pending, the balance consideration
was deposited. In the case in hand, no steps have been taken to bring it to the
notice of the High Court that respondent had committed default in
compliance of the appellate decree of depositing the balance consideration,
within the given time.
Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner relied upon Joseph George vs.
Chacko Thomas, 1992(1) KTL 6, to support the contention that as long as
the decree is not decided under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the
Court has the power to extend the time and this can be done, even without a
written application, in this behalf.
Also, counsel for the petitioner emphatically relied upon Ram
Lal vs. Jarnail Singh (now deceased) and others, 2025 INSC 301, to pin
point that the facts of the case under consideration, in the aforesaid case, are
similar to the factual position of the present case, wherein, doctrine of
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -5-
merger was discussed and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court had emphasized
upon the duty of the Appellate Courts to comply with the provisions of
Order XX Rule 12A of the CPC and observed that if the Appellate Court had
failed to stipulate any particular time period, then it is expected of the decree
holder to deposit the same, within a reasonable period of time.
Thus, summing up his arguments, counsel for the petitioner submitted
that when the appeal, as such, was dismissed by the Appellate Court and the
amount was deposited thereafter, during the pendency of the RSA, the same,
as such, could not be said to be a late deposit, as per the time given by the
trial Court, at the first instance, as the decree so passed, stood merged with
the appellate decree, who never specified the time limit for the deposit of the
balance sale consideration.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would
contend that when specified time period was given by the trial Court, to pay
the balance sale consideration to the respondent or to deposit the same with
the Court, within two months, from the date of decree and further observed
that failing which, this suit shall stand dismissed automatically, therefore, it
was incumbent upon the petitioner to have done the needful, within the
requisite period. However, it was not so done. Rather, the petitioner took
about 2½ years to deposit the requisite balance sale consideration. Thus, on
account of non-compliance, within the given time frame, the suit stood
dismissed on 12.02.2010, as per the judgment and decree in question. No
stay, as such, was granted by the Appellate Court, which fact, it is pointed
out, stands amply evident from the zimini orders passed by the Appellate
Court, from time to time, which have been placed on record.
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -6-
However, it is submitted that such being the position, the petitioner in
an application for permission to deposit the balance sale consideration, copy
whereof is Annexure R-1, has wrongly projected about operation of the
decree being stayed, which is factually incorrect. Not only this, also counsel
for the respondent pointed out that this wrongful projection of the factual
position, also crept in the execution petition, copy whereof is Annexure P-6.
To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent
placed reliance upon P.R.Yelumalai vs. N.M. Ravi, 2015(2) RCR (Civil)
585, wherein, it was held that where there was delay of only one day in the
requisite deposit of the balance sale consideration, within a given time
period and there was no application for extension of time, the suit would
stand dismissed.
Also, learned counsel cited Mangal Singh vs. Amrik Singh,
2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 98, wherein, the plaintiff-decree holder was held to be
required to deposit balance sale consideration, within a period two months
and non-deposit of balance sale consideration, was considered to be one of
the ingredients of readiness and willingness and where no explanation was
given by the plaintiff, for not moving an application for deposit within time,
the judgment and decree was held to be rendered un-executable.
Learned counsel also cited Prem Jeevan vs. K.S. Venkata Raman,
2017(2) Civ. CC 1, wherein, it was held that merely because rescission of
contract is not sought by judgment debtor, the same does not automatically
result in extension of time.
Thus, summing up his arguments, learned counsel submits that
the objections have been rightly allowed by the Executing Court and on the
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -7-
basis thereof, the execution petition has been correctly dismissed by the
Executing Court, which calls for no further intervention, while exercising
the revisional powers by this Court.
The factual position, as narrated in the earlier portion of the
judgment, as such is not disputed. That being so, it is important to make
reference to Rule 12A of Order XX CPC, which enacts that a decree for
specific performance of contract for sale or lease of immoveable
property, should specify the period, within which purchase money or
other sum, should be paid by the purchaser or lessee, as the case may
be. Thus, Rule 12A makes it obligatory for the Court to specify in the
decree for specific performance of contract for sale or lease of immoveable
property, the date by which, the purchase money or other sum should be paid
by the vendee or lessee. The trial Court has jurisdiction to fix time limit for
the deposit of the money by the decree holder under Section 28 of the
Specific Relief Act.
Considering the aforesaid, in Ram Lal‘s case (supra), it was
observed that the decree is preliminary in nature and the Court retains
control over it. In the case under consideration, while thrashing the factual
position, it was observed that the trial Court, while allowing the suit and
granting the relief of specific performance, specifically stipulated two
months’ time period, for the plaintiff to deposit balance sale consideration
and get the sale deed executed in his favour. However, the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court, came to be challenged before the Appellate
Court. In this context, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
once the judgment passed by the trial Court is challenged before the
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -8-
Appellate Court, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court,
would get merged with the judgment of the Appellate Court,
irrespective of the fact, whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed and
observed that in the case on hand, the appeal stood dismissed.
Such being the factual position, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed, as herein given:-
“37. The law in the aforesaid context is well settled. The
doctrine of merger is founded on the rationale that there cannot
be more than one operative decree at a given point of time. The
doctrine of merger applies irrespective of whether the appellate
court has affirmed, modified or reversed the decree of the trial
court.
38. In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala reported in (2000) 6
SCC 359, while explaining the doctrine of merger, this Court
held thus:-
“12. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that
there cannot be more than one decree or operative
orders governing the same subject-matter at a given
point of time. When a decree or order passed by an
inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a
remedy available under the law before a superior forum
then, though the decree or order under challenge
continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its
finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has
disposed of the lis before it either way- whether the
decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or
simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior
court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding
and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree
or order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority
below. However, the doctrine is not of universal or
unlimited application. The nature of jurisdiction
exercised by the superior forum and the content or
subject-matter of challenge laid or which could have
been laid shall have to be kept in view.”
39. Further, while explaining the position that emerges on the
grant of special leave to appeal by this Court, it was observed
VINEET GULATI
in Kunhayammed (supra) that:-
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -9-
“41. Once a special leave petition has been granted, the
doors for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this
Court have been let open. The order impugned before the
Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against. Any
order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and
would attract the applicability of doctrine of merger. It
would not make a difference whether the order is one of
reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the
order appealed against. It would also not make any
difference if the order is a speaking or non-speaking
one.”
40. The position of law as aforesaid has been affirmed and
reiterated by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara
Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. reported in (2019) 4 SCC 376.
41. The decision in Kunhayammed (supra) was followed by a
three Judge Bench decision of this Court in Chandi Prasad v.
Jagdish Prasad, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 724, which held
thus:-
“23. The doctrine of merger is based on the principles of
propriety in the hierarchy of the justice delivery system.
The doctrine of merger does not make a distinction
between an order of reversal, modification or an order of
confirmation passed by the appellate authority. The said
doctrine postulates that there cannot be more than one
operative decree governing the same subject-matter at a
given point of time.
24. It is trite that when an appellate court passes a
decree, the decree of the trial court merges with the
decree of the appellate court and even if and subject to
any modification that may be made in the appellate
decree, the decree of the appellate court supersedes the
decree of the trial court. In other words, merger of a
decree takes place irrespective of the fact as to whether
the appellate court affirms, modifies or reverses the
decree passed by the trial court.”
42. The decision in Chandi Prasad (supra) was followed by a
two-Judge Bench of this Court in Shanthi v. T.D.
Vishwanathan reported in (2019) 11 SCC 419 rendered on 24-
10-2018 in the following terms:-
“7. … When an appeal is prescribed under a statute and
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -10-the appellate forum is invoked and entertained, for all
intents and purposes, the suit continues. When a higher
forum entertains an appeal and passes an order on
merit, the doctrine of merger would apply. The doctrine
of merger is based on the principles of the propriety in
the hierarchy of the justice delivery system. The doctrine
of merger does not make a distinction between an order
of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation
passed by the appellate authority. The said doctrine
postulates that there cannot be more than one operative
decree governing the same subject-matter at a given
point of time.”
(Emphasis supplied)”
Taking into consideration the case law aforesaid, it was further
observed in the aforesaid case, as herein given:-
43. The doctrine of merger operates as a principle upon a
judgment being rendered by the appellate court. In the present
case, once the appellate court affirmed the judgment and
decree of the trial court, there was evidently a merger of the
judgment of the trial court with the decision of the appellate
court. Once the appellate court renders its judgment, it is the
decree of the appellate court which becomes executable.
44. The decree for specific performance is in the nature of a
preliminary decree. Both the parties have reciprocal rights and
obligations flowing out of the decree. The decree may fix the
time limit for performance and in some cases may also provide
for the consequence for non-performance within the time limit
or the decree may even be silent on this aspect.
45. The decree enforces specific performance of the contract.
The contract between the parties is thus not extinguished by
passing of a decree for specific performance and it subsists
despite the decree. Section 28 (1) of the Act, makes it clear that
the Court does not become a functus officio after the grant of
the decree for specific performance and it retains its power and
VINEET GULATI
jurisdiction to deal with the decree till the sale deed is
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -11-
executed.
46. The Court has been conferred with the power to extend the
time to pay the amount and while taking into consideration the
delay that is sought to be condoned by the plaintiff, the Court
does not adjudge the same like an application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, where each day’s delay must be
explained. The Court is given the discretion to extend the time
and the provision therefore seeks to provide complete relief to
both the parties in terms of the decree for specific performance.
47. The power and jurisdiction granted under Section 28 (1) of
the Act, enables the Court to extend the period for payment of
the purchase money if it has not been paid within the period
allowed by the decree. It also enables the judgment debtor to
seek for rescinding the contract for non-compliance of the
directions given in the decree and while considering this
application, the Court is given the discretion to rescind the
contract or in an appropriate case to even extend the time for
paying the purchase money.
48. It should also be borne in mind that appeal is a
continuation of the original proceedings and the power of the
Court to extend the time for depositing the amount can be
exercised even in the appellate stage by the Court.
49. In the considered view of this Court, the Appellate Court,
after deciding the appeal on merits, could have called upon the
plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration by fixing a
time limit. This would have at least given an opportunity to the
plaintiff to fulfil his obligation. The non-payment of the balance
sale consideration within the time period fixed by the Trial
Court does not amount to abandonment of the contract and
consequent rescinding of the same. The real test must be to see
if the conduct of the plaintiff will amount to a positive refusal to
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -12-
complete his part of the contract. There must be an element of
wilful negligence on the part of the plaintiff before a Court
proceeds to invoke Section 28 of the Act and rescind the
contract. (See: Krishnamoorthy v. Shanmugasundaram &
Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 963).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal‘s case (supra), further
made the observations to sensitize the Appellate Courts, with regard to the
duties imposed upon the them, for the necessary compliance of provisions of
Order XX Rule 12A CPC and observed, as herein given:-
50. This litigation is an eye-opener for the appellate courts
reminding that they owe a duty to comply with the provisions of
Order XX Rule 12A of the CPC. Where an appeal is filed
against the decree passed by the trial court and the appeal is
disposed of, the appellate court should specify time to deposit
the balance sale consideration. It is too much to say that since
the trial court had granted two months time to the decree
holder to deposit the balance sale consideration the same time
period would apply even to the decree that may be drawn by the
appellate court. What is executable is the decree passed by the
appellate court. The appellate court owes a duty to specify the
time period. If during the specified time period the decree
holder is not in a position to deposit the balance sale
consideration or, in other words, fails to deposit the balance
sale consideration and later upon expiry of the specified time
period seeks permission to deposit, then it would be within the
discretion of the trial court to grant further time to deposit the
balance sale consideration or decline. This discretion has to be
exercised judiciously keeping in mind various factors like bona
fide of the decree holder, the cause for failure to deposit the
balance sale consideration in time, the length of delay and also
the equities that might have been created during the
VINEET GULATI
interregnum period in favour of the judgment debtor. It is the
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -13-
cumulative effect and considerations of such factors that should
weigh with the court concerned while permitting the decree
holder to deposit the balance sale consideration beyond the
time period that might have been prescribed by the trial court
in its final decree.
Furthermore, the Court observed that no doubt, there was delay,
on the part of decree holder in filing the execution petition and thereby,
seeking the permission to deposit the balance sale consideration and held
that even though, there was time period of 12 years, for seeking execution of
the decree that does not mean that the decree holder, deposits the balance
sale consideration, at his own sweet will.
In the light of the same, it also observed that if the Appellate
Court had failed to stipulate any particular time period, then it is expected of
the decree holder to deposit the same, within a reasonable period of time.
Considering all the facts, as spelt out, in the case under
consideration in Ram Lal‘s case (supra), on account of delay in filing the
execution and also considering the delay of four years in deposit of the
balance sale consideration, the Court had also held that judgment debtor
entitled to simple interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of
judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court, till the date balance
consideration was deposited and further gave a period for the deposit of the
amount, within a period two weeks from today i.e. from the date of the
judgment.
In this backdrop, adverting to the case in hand, indisputably, an
appeal was filed to assail the trial Court decree dated 12.12.2009. Stay
application was also filed therein along with the appeal, which was not
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -14-
decided, as evident from the copies of the zimini orders passed by the
Appellate Court, placed on record. It being so, ultimately, the appeal was
dismissed vide judgment dated 13.08.2012.
Such being the position, be it noted that in the application filed before
the District Judge, thereby seeking permission to deposit the amount, copy
whereof is Annexure R-1, it was so mentioned about the operation to be
stayed, which further crept in the execution petition, copy whereof is
Annexure P-6. This was palpably wrong assertion, upon which, much
emphasis has been laid by counsel for the respondent.
May it be so. However, the decree, as such, on the basis thereof, does
not stand nullified, more particularly, considering no time limit having fixed
by the Appellate Court. Yes, of course, things would have worked
differently, if the appeal had not been decided, when an application for the
deposit of the balance sale consideration, as such was filed. However, as
evident from the factual position, as narrated in the earlier portion of the
judgment, an application for seeking deposit of the balance sale
consideration was filed, after the decision of the appeal and that too, soon
thereafter and by application of doctrine of merger, the appellate decree is to
be given effect to, as the time limit is no longer an essence, for the execution
of the decree, as such, earlier passed by the trial Court.
Such being the position, taking into consideration the merger of
the decree of the trial Court with the appellate Court decision and more
particularly, no time limit having affixed by the Court, it was only required
to be seen that the deposit was made, within reasonable time. In the case in
hand, the appeal was dismissed was on 13.08.2012 and the application for
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR-3336-2015 -15-
deposit of the balance sale consideration was filed on 30.08.2012 and the
requisite deposit was made on 31.08.2012. This has to be taken into
consideration.
In the light of the same, the objection, with regard to the delay
in deposit of the balance sale consideration, in consonance with the trial
Court decree, as such, cannot be held to be there. Even though, there was
wrongful projection of the operation of stay by the Appellate Court, in the
application, the same, as observed aforesaid, does not nullify the decree in
question, in the manner, as now projected. However, the conduct of the
petitioner, about the manner in which, the application was filed, shall
appropriately be considered and appraised by the Executing Court.
Considering the same, the impugned order brooks interference.
Hence, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the objections filed by the
respondent, as such, are hereby dismissed. Consequently, the execution
petition is restored to its original number. Learned Executing Court shall
proceed further with the execution petition and pass appropriate orders, vis-
a-vis, the execution of the decree, in the fitness of the circumstances.
February 24, 2026 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
VINEET GULATI
2026.02.24 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
