Important Points
1. Where two months time was granted to the decree holder, in specific performance decree, to deposit balance of sale consideration but neither amount was deposited nor any application for extension of time was filed within two months and in execution proceedings initiated after 5 years of decree, extension of time was sought for, it was held no extension could be granted especially when no explanation was forthcoming as to why balance sale consideration was not deposited as per decree.
2. Merely because a suit is filed within the prescribed period of limitation does not absolve the vendee-plaintiff from showing as to whether he was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and if there was non-performance was that on account of any obstacle put by the vendor or otherwise.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963 -Sections 16 and 28-Specific performance-Bar to relief-Suit decreed and vendee directed to deposit balance sale consideration with two months-Appeal by vendor-Dismissal-Appellate Court not extending time given to deposit sale consideration-Execution petition after 5 years of decree-Objection by judgment debtor that sale consideration not deposited within time allowed - E.P. dismissed - Revision application by decree holder-Application for extension of time before revisional Court-Remand of petition to executing Court to treat same as I.A. in E.P.-Whether time could be extended-No-No explanation for non-deposit of amount as directed by trial Court-Nor application seeking extension filed within time allowed for deposit-If time is granted now that would be going beyond period of limitation suit for specific performance-Extension of time not permissible.
Held : When the trial Court and the executing court are same, executing court can entertain the application for extension of time though the application is to be treated as one filed in the main suit. On the same analogy, the vendor judgment-holder can also seek rescission of the contract of sale or take up this plea in defence to bar the execution of decree. One of the grounds on which the trial Court dismissed the execution application was that the decree holder did not pay the balance of consideration as per the sale agreement and also did not pay within the time stipulated by the court in the decree. High Court could have certainly gone into this question when applications for extension of time was filed before it. However, on the objection by the judgment-debtor, it chose to send back the matter to the executing court for decision on these applications, which was perhaps, in the circumstances, was not correct procedure to adopt. But then, at the same time, the High Court put shackles on the discretion of the executing court by observing that vendor might have felt that after the appeal filed by the vendor judgment-holder against the decree for specific performance was disposed of they can even then deposit the amount or at the time of seeking the execution of the sale deed. (Para 16)
The agreement of sale was entered into as far back on February 16, 1980, about 19 years ago. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the balance amount of consideration could not be deposited within time granted by the court and why no application was made under Section 28 of the Act seeking extension of time of this period. Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 3 years period is prescribed for filing the suit for specific performance of contract of sale from the date of the agreement or when the cause of action arises. Merely because a suit is filed within the prescribed period of limitation does not absolve the vendee-plaintiff from showing as to whether he was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and if there was non-performance was that on account of any obstacle put by the vendor or otherwise. Provisions to grant specific performance of an agreement are quite stringent. Equitable considerations come into play. Court has to see all the attendant circumstances including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale. That being the position of law for filing the suit for specific performance, can the court as a matter of course allow extension of time for making payment of balance amount of consideration in terms of a decree after 5 years of passing of the decree by the trial Court and 3 years of its confirmation by the appellate court? It is not the case of the respondent-decree holder that on account of any fault on the part of the vendor-judgment-debtor, the amount could not be deposited as per the decree. That being the position, if now time is granted, that would be going beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the suit for specific performance of the agreement though this provision may not be strictly applicable. It is nevertheless an important circumstance to be considered by the Court. That apart, no explanation whatsoever is coming from the decree-holder-respondents as to why they did not pay the balance amount of consideration as per the decree except what the High Court itself thought fit to comment which is certainly not borne out from the record. Equity demands that discretion be not exercised in favour of the decree holder-respondents and no extension of time be granted to them to comply with the decree. (Para 17)

Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted.

2. These are judgment-debtor’s two appeals against common judgment dated December 24, 1997 of the Madras High Court, passed in revision of the order of the executing court dismissing execution applications filed by the respondent decree-holders. The decrees are for specific performance of two agreements of sale of certain immovable properties.

3. The appellant, as owner of the property being two plots of land, each measuring 60 x 40 , entered into two separate but similar agreements of sale dated February 16, 1980 with the respondent decree-holders.

Since the judgment-debtor failed to perform his part of the agreements, decree-holders filed suits for specific performance of the contract of sale in the court of the District Munsif, Pudukottai. The suits were decreed in favour of the respondents with a direction to them to deposit the balance amount of consideration and with further direction to the appellant to execute the sale-deeds. The suits were decreed on January 31, 1983 and the balance consideration amount was to be deposited on or before March 31, 1983. Against the judgment and order decreeing the suits the appellant filed appeals in the High Court which were dismissed on February 28, 1985. High Court while dismissing the appeals of the judgment-debtor did not grant any extension of time to the respondents for deposit of the balance amount of consideration.

4. The respondent decree-holders filed applications for execution of the decrees of specific performance of contract after five years of the decrees by the trial court and three years after dismissal of the appeals by the High Court. One of the contentions raised by the appellant judgment-debtor was that the respondent decree-holders had failed to deposit the balance amount of consideration in terms of the decrees. In one case the balance consideration amount was deposited much after the period granted in the decree and in the other case no amount of the balance consideration was at all deposited.

5. The executing court by order dated September 2, 1984 dismissed the execution applications of the respondent decree-holders holding that they did not pay the amount of balance consideration within the time stipulated under the decrees.

6. Against this order two revisions were filed in the High Court by the respondent decree-holders. It was not disputed that there was delay in complying with the terms of the decrees which were conditional. In the course of proceedings before the High Court respondent decree-holders filed separate applications seeking extension of time granted under the decrees by the trial Court to deposit the amount. When the appellant judgment-debtor objected to the filing of the application on the ground that these could not be maintained in the High Court and no such application was filed in the trial Court, the High Court remitted the matter to the executing court with a direction to treat the applications as interlocutory applications in the execution proceedings and to dispose them of in accordance with law. At the same time High Court also said that in view of the decision of this Court in Sardar Mohar Singh through Power of Attorney Holder, Manjit Singh v. Mangilal alias Mangtya1, “the lower court has got power to extend time”.

7. Aggrieved the appellant judgment-debtor filed these appeals.

8. Under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) there are certain grounds which bar the relief of specific performance of the contract. This Section, insofar it is relevant, is as under :-

“16. Personal bars to relief.-Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person-

(a) ............

(b) ............

(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 118

Cases Referred (6)