Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(SC) 252

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
P.R. Yelumalai - Appellant
Versus
N.M. Ravi - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3213 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2012)
WITH
N.M. Ravi - Appellant
Versus
P.R. Yelumalai- Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3214 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10852 of 2013)
Decided on: 27-03-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioners: Ms. Lata Krishnamurti, Adv., Dr. B. Kalaivannan, Adv., Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv., Ms. P.R. Mala, Adv., Mr. Pranav Diesh, Adv., Mr. Karan Kalia, Adv., Mr. I. Elangovan, Adv., Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, Adv.
For Respondents: Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, Adv., Ms. Lata Krishnamurti, Adv., Dr. B. Kalaivannan, Adv., Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv., Ms. P.R. Mala, Adv., Mr. Pranav Diesh, Adv., Mr. Karan Kalia, Adv., Mr. I. Elangovan, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Conditions stipulated in the decree must be satisfied scrupulously.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice – Jurisdiction of court – Both courts below returning concurrent finding that case for extension of time was not made out – Therefore deciding which court would have jurisdiction to extend time would be an exercise in futility – However, extension of time can be granted even after the expiry of the period originally fixed. (Para 11)
       (1989) 4 SCC 403 – Relied upon
       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 148 r/w Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and section 151, CPC – Plaintiff-Buyer permitted to deposit balance consideration money within a month – Limitation started from date of decree, i.e., 27.2.2007 and ended on 26.3.2007 – Further extension of two months ending on 26.5.2007 – Court in vacation – Court not working on 26.5.2007 and next date i.e., 27.5.2007 was Sunday – Plaintiff-Buyer was thus required to deposit the amount on 28.5.2007, which was the reopening day – RO taken out on 29.5.2007 and amount deposited the same day – No evidence showing that Plaintiff-Buyer made efforts to deposit the balance consideration on 28.5.2007 or made an application on 28.5.2007 – Thus, Plaintiff-Buyer failed to comply with the decree and the suit stood dismissed automatically. (Para 12, 13, 15)
       (1998) 9 SCC 108 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       One P.R. Yelumalai, the appellant, entered into an Agreement of Sale with N.M. Ravi, the respondent who is the absolute owner of the property. The total consideration for the sale was Rs.41,60,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs was paid as advance money towards the total consideration amount.
       Thereafter, the Seller vide legal notice sought to cancel the agreement of sale which was refused by the Buyer. This led to filing of a suit for specific performance of the contract by the Buyer P.R. Yelumalai.
       The suit was decreed on 15.02.2007 and the Plaintiff-Buyer was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.33,60,000/- by way of demand draft, in Court within one month from the date of decree and the Defendant-Seller was directed to execute regular sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff Buyer, within three months from the date of decree. It was made clear by the Trial Court in the decree that if the balance amount of sale consideration is not deposited within one month from the date of decree, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
       The Plaintiff-Buyer did not deposit the said amount within one month as stipulated in the decree but he filed an application for extension of time for depositing the amount of balance sale consideration. Time was extended by two months. After the extension order, the last date for deposit of the amount fell during the Summer Vacation of the Court. The Plaintiff-Buyer did not deposit the said amount even on the re-opening day after Summer Vacation, i.e. 28.05.2007. But allegedly, he filed a Memo for issue of Receipt Order (R.O.) for depositing the said amount. However as per the records, the R.O. was issued on 29.05.2007 and the amount was deposited on the same day by cash.
       The Defendant-Seller was not served with a copy of the Memo and was not notified with regard to the alleged deposit.
       The Defendant-Seller sold the property in question to Sri Rajesh on 20.06.2007, under a registered sale deed.
       The Plaintiff-Buyer filed Execution Petition which was dismissed.
       The High Court dismissed the writ petition but gave liberty to the appellant to move the trial court for further extension of time which was filed and rejected.
       High Court remanded the matter to trial court for fresh consideration on four issues framed by it.
       This order is challenged in this appeal.
       Finding of the Court:
       The questions formulated by the High Court in the order of remand are not required to be answered by the Trial Court.
       Result: Appeal filed by Plaintiff-Buyer dismissed and the appeal filed by the Defendant-Seller allowed.

Judgment

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave is granted in both the matters.

2. These cross appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition (Civil) No.6449 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the High Court of Karnataka has set aside the order dated 15.02.2007 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.439 of 2006 and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law.

3. The factual background of the case is that on 04.08.2006, one P.R. Yelumalai, who is the appellant in the first appeal, entered into an Agreement of Sale with N.M. Ravi, the respondent in the first appeal, is the absolute owner of the property. The total consideration for the sale was Rs.41,60,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs was paid as advance money towards the total consideration amount. Thereafter, the Seller vide legal notice dated 04.09.2006 sought to cancel the agreement of sale which was refused by the Buyer. This led to filing of a suit for specific performance of the contract by the Buyer P.R. Yelumalai (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff-Buyer”), before the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kolar, being O.S. No.439/2006. The Seller N.M. Ravi (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant-Seller”) conceded to the Plaintiff-Buyer’s prayer for performance of the said agreement stating that he had no objection to the Court decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff-Buyer. Accordingly, the suit was decreed on 15.02.2007 and the Plaintiff-Buyer was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.33,60,000/- by way of demand draft, in Court within one month from the date of decree and the Defendant-Seller was directed to execute regular sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff Buyer, within three months from the date of decree. It was made clear by the Trial Court in the decree that if the balance amount of sale consideration is not deposited within one month from the date of decree, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

4. The Plaintiff-Buyer did not deposit the said amount within one month as stipulated in the decree but he filed an application for extension of time for depositing the amount of balance sale consideration and vide order dated 17.03.2007, the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) extended the time by two months. After the extension order, the last date for deposit of the amount fell during the Summer Vacation of the Court. The Plaintiff-Buyer did not deposit the said amount even on the re-opening day after Summer Vacation, i.e. 28.05.2007. But allegedly, he filed a Memo for issue of Receipt Order (R.O.) for depositing the said amount. However as per the records, the R.O. was issued on 29.05.2007 and the amount was deposited on the same day by cash.

5. Admittedly, the Defendant-Seller was not served with a copy of the Memo and was not notified with regard to the alleged deposit. The Defendant-Seller sold the property in question to Sri Rajesh on 20.06.2007, under a registered sale deed. The Plaintiff-Buyer filed Execution Petition No.88/2008 on 17.03.2008 in the Court of IInd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), which was dismissed on 20.10.2008. The IInd Additional Civil Judge observed as follows:

“7. It is also the contention of the J.Dr. there is no evidence that D.Hr. has deposited the balance consideration on 29.5.2007. Therefore records in O.S.439/2006 were secured by the court and perusal of the same, it is revealed that in the order sheet after 170/07 there is an endorsement of the office that consideration amount of Rs.33,60,000.00 is deposited under J.D.No.177/07 (R.O. No.295806) dated 29.5.2007 and the same endorsement is found in the certified copy of the order sheet produced by the D.Hr. in this case. However, the counsel for the J.Dr. argued that he has also obtained copy of the order sheet and in his order sheet in O.S. 439/06 said endorsement is not there and therefore, he impliedly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 252

IMPORTANT POINTConditions stipulated in the decree must be satisfied scrupulously.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Conditions stipulated in the decree must be satisfied scrupulously.