Judgment

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- Leave granted.

2. The appellant judgment-debtor filed a petition in the executing Court to rescind the contract dated January 16, 1976 on the plea that the respondent-plaintiff had committed default in depositing the balance consideration of Rs. 4,351 /- within one month from January 27, 1982 made by the appellate decree in A.S. No. 213 of 1979. The executing Court dismissed the application on the ground that the deposit was made within the time though the application on the execution side was maintainable. On revision, the High Court in C.R.P. No. 593 /90 dismissed the petition by judgment dated August 11, 1992 holding it not maintainable on the execution side.

3. The only question that arises for consideration is whether an application under S. 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for short the Act is maintainable on the execution side in a decree passed in the same suit by the appellate Court. The facts are not in dispute. Under the contract of sale the respondent was put in possession and on failure of the vendor to execute the sale deed the respondent filed the suit for specific performance. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, while granting the decree for specific performance, the Court granted one month time to deposit the balance consideration. The appellant carried the matter in Second Appeal to the High Court. The respondent deposited the amount after the time fixed by the appellate Court but before the second appeal was dismissed. While the decree was in execution the appellant filed the petition under S. 28 of the Act. The original suit and the execution application is in the same court.

Section 28(l) of the Act reads thus:

"28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contract for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed -

(1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the Court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the Court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescind and on such application the Court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require."

(Emphasis supplied)

4. A bare reading itself clearly mentions that in a suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property has been made and time has been prescribed for performance, it should be complied within time. On its default, power has been given to the Court that passed the decree to further extend the time as the Court may allow and the purchase money or any other sum be paid within the extended time. If the payment is not made even within the time originally fixed or extended time, what would be the consequences depends on the terms of the decree with which we are not concerned in this appeal.

5. There appears to be difference of opinion among the High Courts in this behalf. The Bombay High Court in Maruti Vishnu Kshirsagar v. Bapu Keshav Jadhav, AIR 1970 Bombay 398 held that the application, though made on the execution side, may be transferred to the original side or may be treated as an application made on the original side and time may be extended under S. 28 of the Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ibrahim Shariff v. Masthan Shariff (1967 (2) Andhra Weekly Reporter 60, at p. 65) took the contra view that an application does not lie on the execution side and it should be filed on the original side.

6. Sri Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the meaning of the word "same suit" in S. 28(1) of the Act should not be construed to be the original court in which the decree was made. Therefore, the application would lie for extension of time, or