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 companyrt 15 More recently, the decision in Chandi Prasad supra was followed by a two judge Bench of this Court in Shanthi v T D Vishwanathan9 rendered on 24 October 2018 in the following terms When an appeal is prescribed under a statute and the appellate forum is invoked and entertained, for all intents and purposes, the suit companytinues.
1 Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a companytract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does number, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the companyrt may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the companyrt has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the companytract rescinded and on such application the companyrt may, by order, rescind the companytract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require.
94/18 7 8 , 19 8 0 , 20/1 6 3 , 21/1 1 7 and 94/21/3 2 0 situated in village Billa, Tehsil and District Panchkula.
On 20 March 2012, the Civil Judge Senior Division , Panchkula decreed the suit except for land bearing 2 kanals mentioned in the sale deed in exhibit D3.
4 On 15 June 2012, the appellant filed proceedings before the Civil Judge Senior Division , Panchkula for seeking the execution of the decree passed in his favour, pending the first appeal.
6 On 17 January 2015, the Additional District Judge upheld the judgment and order of the Trial Court while dismissing both sets of appeals filed respectively by the appellant and the respondent.
7 On 23 February 2015, the executing companyrt rejected the objections of the respondents to the execution of the decree and allowed the appellants execution petition.
5 On 19 May 2014, the respondent filed objections to the execution petition.
The Rs of the defendant No.1 are directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the remaining suit land within a period of two months from today in receipt of remaining balance sale companysideration after deduction of companysideration of 2 kanals land and in case of failure of the L.Rs.
The High Court held that there was a failure on the part of the appellant to deposit the balance of the sale companysideration within a period of two months from the date of the decree and as a companysequence the decree had been rendered inexecutable by virtue of the provisions of Section 28 1 of 1 28.
P1 dated 08.12.2003 is passed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of remaining suit land, i.e., except the land of 2 kanals mentioned in sale deed Ex.
For the above, it was submitted that the appellant having failed to companyply with the companyditions specified in the decree dated 20 March 2012, the High Court was justified in allowing the respondents civil revision and holding that the decree had been rendered inexecutable.
The doctrine of merger does number make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an 8 2019 4 SCC 376 9 Civil Appeal No.
1,15,864/ , companysequent upon the partial decree in the suit had been deposited on 19 February 2015 after the dismissal of the first appeals on 17 January 2015.
The judgment debtor was directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the remaining portion of the suit land within a period of 2 months on receipt of the balance sale companysideration and upon deducting the companysideration for 2 kanals of land.
12 By its judgment dated 20 March 2012, the Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant save and except for the land admeasuring 2 kanals.
16 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC, an appeal does number operate as a stay of the proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, number shall execution of the decree be stayed only by reason of an appeal having been preferred from the decree.
The appellant sought to enforce an agreement for the sale of land bearing 12 kanals and 9 marlas, representing a half share out of the land bearing Khewat Khatauni No.
The respondent then filed a civil revision before the High Court which resulted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1 June 2018 by which the order of the executing companyrt was set aside.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date 2019.07.23 163219 IST A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a Reason Civil Revision instituted by the respondents and in the process dismissed the application of the appellant for the execution of a decree in a suit for specific performance.
The Appellate Court issued numberice on the appeal and the application for stay filed by the judgment debtor, while the decree holder moved for execution of the decree.
On 23 April 2012, the Additional District Judge, Panchkula issued numberice in the appeal and on the application for stay filed by the respondent.
Further, while explaining the position that emerges on the grant of special leave to appeal by this Court, it was observed Once a special leave petition has been granted, the doors for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court have been let open.
The doctrine of merger applies irrespective of whether the Appellate Court has affirmed, modified or reversed the decree of the Trial Court.
The Appellate Court dismissed both sets of appeals by companyfirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
10442 of 2011, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2196 order of companyfirmation passed by the appellate authority.
2 In 2006, the appellant instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 8 December 2003.
The decree of the Trial Court envisaged performance of the agreement to sell dated 8 December 2003 in respect of the land which formed the subject matter of the suit, except for 2 kanals.
Accepting the objections of the judgment debtor, the High Court directed a refund of earnest money in substitution of the decree for specific performance.
Any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the applicability of doctrine of merger.
13 Upon the decision of the Appellate Court, there was a merger of the judgment of the Trial Court with the decision which was rendered in appeal.
When a higher forum entertains an appeal and passes an order on merit, the doctrine of merger would apply.
The said doctrine postulates that there cannot be more than one operative decree governing the same subject matter at a given point of time.
It would number make a difference whether the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the order appealed against.
The order impugned before the Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against.
The doctrine of merger is founded on the rationale that there cannot be more than one operative decree at a given point in time.
11 The rival submissions fall for our companysideration.
Insofar as is material, the decree provided thus Resultantly, a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell Ex.
3 Both the appellant and the respondent filed appeals against the judgment of the Trial Court.
Rescission in certain circumstances of companytracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed.
The judgment debtor had filed objections to the execution of the decree.
The decision of the Trial Court was carried in appeal both by the decree holder and by the judgment debtor.
The doctrine of merger is based on the principles of the propriety in the hierarchy of the justice delivery system.
of defendant No.1 to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered quo the aforesaid land through the Court agency.
8,35,000/ under the terms of the agreement to sell, the appellant in 2004 had paid an amount of Rs.
D3, on making balance sale companysideration amount to the L.Rs.
of defendant No.1, after deducting the companysideration of aforesaid 2 kanals land.
Consequent upon the passing of the decree of an Appellate Court, the decree of the Trial Court merges with that of the Appellate Court.
565/525, Khasra No.
5,85,000/ while the balance of Rs.
