Pal Inderjit Singh vs Tejinder Singh

S.P. Bangarh, J.—Respondent no. 1, herein, filed Civil Suit No. 139 dated 25.05.2006 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roop Nagar against the petitioner and respondents nos. 2 and 3 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.03.2005 in respect of the suit land mentioned in Annexure P1. Petitioner and respondent no. 3 filed their separate written statements. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed and finally the suit was decreed against the petitioner and respondents nos. 2 and 3 vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 1945 of 2013, titled Pal Inderjit Singh v. Tejinder Singh and others. Since, decree holder, respondent no. 1, herein, did not comply with the terms and conditions of the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013, the petitioner filed application u/s 28 of the Specific Relief Act for rescission of the agreement of safe dated 10.03.2005. But that has not been decided so far.

It is the prayer of the petitioner in the revision petition that the first Appellate Court should be directed to defer the hearing of the appeal until the decision in the application of the petitioner that has been moved by him u/s 28 of the Specific Relief Act for rescission of the agreement of sale dated 10.03.2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that no written prayer was made to the first Appellate court for deferring the hearing of the appeal up till the decision of his application u/s 28 of the Specific Relief Act by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ropar. It is his case that only verbal prayer was made and that was declined. The fact remains that from the record of the case, it is not made out that some prayer was made to the first Appellate Court in writing and only the written prayer is required to be made to the Appellate Court for staying the hearing of the appeal up till decision of the application u/s 28 of the Specific Relief Act, that has been filed by the petitioner before the trial Court.

So, the instant revision is not maintainable, as no order was passed by the first Appellate Court on the prayer of the petitioner. He should approach the first Appellate Court by moving application in this regard for staying the hearing of the appeal till the disposal of application u/s 28 of the Specific Relief Act by the trial Court and if the order in favour of the petitioner is not passed, in that event, that order may be challenged by him through revision in this Court.

Therefore, the revision is pre mature at this stage and is, hereby, dismissed in terms indicated supra.