Trial Court’s Two-Month Deposit Clause Cannot Defeat Execution After Appeal: P&H High Court Applies Doctrine of Merger in Specific Performance Decree
Case Name: Paramjit Singh v. Satish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 24 February 2026
Citation: CR-3336-2015
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Archana Puri
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once an appeal against a decree for specific performance is decided, the trial court’s decree merges into the appellate decree. Where the appellate court does not stipulate a time limit for deposit of the balance sale consideration, the decree holder is required only to deposit the amount within a reasonable time. Deposit made promptly after dismissal of the appeal cannot be treated as delayed on the basis of the trial court’s earlier two-month clause.
Summary: The petitioner decree holder had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.01.2002. The suit was decreed on 12.12.2009 with a direction that the balance sale consideration be paid or deposited within two months from the date of decree, failing which the suit would stand dismissed automatically.
The respondent judgment debtor preferred an appeal on 20.01.2010. The appeal was dismissed on 13.08.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 30.08.2012 before the District Judge seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration and deposited the amount on 31.08.2012. An execution petition was filed on 03.11.2012.
The executing court, however, by order dated 19.11.2014, allowed the objections of the respondent and dismissed the execution petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the two-month period fixed by the trial court and that the suit had automatically stood dismissed.
Before the High Court, the petitioner invoked the doctrine of merger and argued that once the appeal had been decided, the trial court decree merged with the appellate decree. Since the appellate court had not specified any time limit for deposit of the balance sale consideration, the stipulation in the trial court decree ceased to govern execution. It was contended that the deposit made within about two weeks of dismissal of the appeal was within reasonable time.
The respondent countered that no stay had been granted during the appeal and that the petitioner had taken nearly two and a half years from the date of the original decree to deposit the amount. It was further argued that the petitioner had wrongly projected that operation of the decree was stayed.
The High Court examined the law on doctrine of merger and relied upon the Supreme Court’s exposition in Ram Lal v. Jarnail Singh (2025 INSC 301), which clarified that once an appellate court renders its judgment, it is the appellate decree that becomes executable and the trial court decree merges therein. It was reiterated that a decree for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree and the court retains power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to extend time.
Applying these principles, the Court held that after dismissal of the appeal on 13.08.2012, the petitioner filed an application for deposit on 30.08.2012 and deposited the amount on 31.08.2012. In the absence of any time stipulation in the appellate decree, this deposit was within reasonable time and could not be termed belated.
Though the Court noted that there had been an incorrect assertion regarding stay of the decree, it held that such conduct did not nullify the decree itself. The executing court could consider the petitioner’s conduct appropriately, but the execution petition could not be dismissed solely on the basis of non-compliance with the original two-month clause of the trial court decree.
Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the executing court was set aside, the objections of the respondent were dismissed, and the execution petition was restored to its original number for further proceedings in accordance with law.