2009 Supreme(SC) 1502

Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM & DEEPAK VERMA
Bhupinder Kumar
Versus
Angrej Singh
Civil Appeal No. 5846 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C).No.20332 of 2007)
Decided on: 28-08-2009

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 21 - Rule - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 28 – Payment - Jurisdiction after grant of decree - Appellant he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract - In pursuance of sale agreement reached the office Sub-Registrar Pehowa alongwith balance amount sale consideration and expenses get sale deed executed and registered - Since was holiday account of Election appellant again reached office of Sub-Registrar Pehowa but respondent did not turn up - Subsequently appellant sent legal notice to respondent requesting him get sale deed executed and registered but respondent again failed appellant feeling constrained filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell vide which respondent had agreed to sell land measuring marlas - By final judgment and order Addl - Civil Judge Pehowa decreed suit with costs and directed respondent to get sale deed executed and registered in favour of the appellant qua the suit property at rate per marla less amount already received by the respondent within period of three months failing which appellant shall be liberty get sale deed executed and registered through court –Held, Court control suit for specific performance to extend the time for deposit and this Court may do even now enable the plaintiff to get advantage of agreement to sell in her favour - Disentitling circumstances relied upon by defendant-respondent are offset by the false pleas raised in course suit by him and rightly negative - Nor are we convinced that application for consideration and extension of time cannot be read as substance it petition for more time to deposit -Even so specific performance is an equitable relief and he who seeks equity can be put on terms to ensure that equity is done to opposite party even while granting the relief final end law is justice and so means to too should be informed by equity Court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree of specific performance - Therefore court has the power to enlarge the time in favour of the decree-holder to pay the amount or to perform the conditions mentioned in the decree for specific performance - It is clear that Section gives power to court either to extend the time for compliance of the decree or grant order of rescission of the agreement These powers are available Trial Court which passes decree of specific performance - In other words when the court passes the decree for specific performance contract between the parties not extinguished - To put it clear that decree for specific performance is in the nature of preliminary decree and suit deemed be pending even after decree - Sub Section makes clear that the court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio - Court and High Court cannot be faulted with - Suit for specific performance is in the nature of discretionary remedy on equity appellant was not entitled get the decree executed since he failed place relevant materials about his inability to tender or deposit decreed amount - It is relevant to mention that sale agreement was executed suit for specific performance was filed and suit decreed on stipulating that balance sale consideration was be paid only after judgment debtor filed application for rescission of agreement application for extension of time was moved - As discussed earlier though the Court has power and discretion to extend the time for fulfillment of contract on hand there neither any material to show that appellant was having required money nor had tendered or deposited same as per terms of the decree - Both Executing Court and High Court found that there was just and reasonable cause extend time for depositing the balance consideration - Circumstances and materials placed Court are satisfied that due to bereft of any acceptable material for extension of time Executing Court rightly declined to extend time consequently rescinded contract requested by respondent judgment-debtor - High Court after analyzing all these aspects and finding that decision arrived at by the Executing Court is just and equitable dismissed revision Court are entire agreement with said conclusion - Appeal dismissed