Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Ishwar (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs & Ors. – Appellants
VERSUS
Bhim Singh & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10193 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.29899 of 2017)
Decided On : 03-09-2024
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 37 – Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Suit decreed by lower Appellate Court with direction to appellants to execute sale deed in favour of respondents on payment of balance sale consideration – Execution Court rejected application of judgment-debtor(s) for rescission of contract – Application under Section 28 of 1963 Act, either for rescission of contract or for extension of time, can be entertained and decided by Execution Court provided it is Court which passed decree in terms of Section 37 of CPC – By virtue of Section 37 of CPC, Execution Court being Court of first instance with reference to suit in which decree was passed had jurisdiction to deal with application under Section 28 of 1963 Act – Decree did not spell out consequences of non-payment within stipulated period – Right was given to decree holder to get sale deed executed through Court if it was not executed upon payment within two months – Decree holder(s) had all throughout displayed their intention to pay balance consideration and there appears no intentional or deliberate fault on their part so as to deprive them of fruits of decree – Prayer to extend time to make deposit was implicit in prayer to permit decree holder to make deposit of balance consideration – Substantial justice has been done to parties – If Court interfere with impugned order only on technical ground that application was not dealt with as one on original side, grave injustice would be caused to decree holder(s) – Impugned order upheld. (Paras 18, 19, 27, 28, 29 and 30)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28 – Rescission of contract – Application seeking rescission of contract or extension of time, under Section 28 (1) of 1963 Act, must be decided as application in original suit wherein decree was passed even though suit has been disposed of – As a sequitur, even if Execution Court is Court of first instance with reference to suit wherein decree under execution was passed, it must transfer application filed under Section 28 to file of suit before dealing with it. (Para 22)
(C) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave – Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of Constitution is a discretionary jurisdiction to advance cause of justice – Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 only because it is lawful to do so – For the purpose of doing complete justice to parties, Court may not interfere with order even if it suffers from some legal error – Court may deny relief to a party having regard to its conduct and may, in a given situation, mould relief to do complete justice to parties. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal impugns an order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 11.01.2017 passed in Civil Revision No.8105 of 2016, whereby revision preferred by appellant(s) against the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal dated 03.11.2016 was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
As there was no proper application for extension of time to make deposit, Court had no jurisdiction to extend the same.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with appropriate references.
JUDGMENT
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1 [High Court] dated 11.01.2017 passed in Civil Revision No.8105 of 2016, whereby the revision preferred by the appellant(s) against the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal2 [Execution Court] dated 03.11.2016 was dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. A suit for specific performance was instituted by the respondents against the appellant(s) (which would include their predecessor in interest) for enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 18.05.2005. In the plaint, inter alia, it was alleged that the appellant(s) had agreed to sell the property in dispute at a total consideration of Rs.18 lacs, out of which Rs.9.77 lacs was paid in advance, yet, despite service of notice requesting execution of sale deed, the appellants failed to execute the same.
4. The trial court (i.e., the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal), vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011, decreed the suit in part whereunder the appellant(s) were directed to refund the earnest money with interest, etc.
5. Aggrieved by rejection of the prayer for specific performance of the agreement, the respondents went in appeal. The appellate court (i.e., the Court of Additional District Judge, Kaithal (for short ADJ)) allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.2012 and accepted the prayer for specific performance of the agreement. While doing so, it directed the appellants herein to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondents herein on payment of balance sale consideration within a period of two months from the date of the decree, failing which, liberty was given to the decree holder(s) to get the sale deed executed through Court.
6. On 20.03.2012, the respondents (i.e. decree holders) filed an execution application before the Court of first instance (i.e., the trial court) praying thus:
“It is therefore, prayed that the sale deed as per the decree passed in Civil Appeal No.53 of 2011 may kindly be got executed and registered in favour of the decree holders by the appointment of the local commissioner and possession may kindly be got delivered to the decree holder and the balance sale price may kindly be got deposited in the Court for payment to the J.Ds and cost for the suit and the appeal and this execution may also be got recovered from the J.Ds.”
7. While the application for execution of the decree was pending, the appellant(s) (i.e., the judgment debtor(s)) challenged the appellate court decree by filing Second Appeal No.3730 of 2012 before the High Court, which came to be dismissed on 07.11.2013.
8. Upon dismissal of the Second Appeal, the respondents (i.e., decreeholders) filed an application before the Execution Court on 24.03.2014 seeking permission to deposit the balance consideration in Court. Opposing this prayer of the decree holder, in the execution proceeding itself, the appellant(s) (i.e. the judgmentdebtors) submitted an application under Section 283 [28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts 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 the 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 rescinded 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.
(2) Where a contract is rescinded under sub-section (1), the court—
(a) shall direct the purchaser or the lessee, if he has obtained possession of the property under the contract, to restore such pos
Rescission of contract – Application seeking rescission of contract or extension of time, under Section 28 (1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 must be decided as application in original suit wherein dec....
(1) Rescission of contract – While granting relief of extension, it was open for Court to balance equities by putting decree holder to such terms as may adequately compensate judgment debtor for dela....
The court retains jurisdiction to extend time for performance of a decree, but such extensions must be justified and considered alongside applications for rescission to ensure fairness.
The decree for specific performance remains executable despite delays in deposit of balance sale consideration, provided no rescission is sought by judgment debtors.
The executing court has the authority to extend time for deposit of balance consideration in specific performance cases, but such discretion must be exercised judiciously, taking into account the rea....
(1) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Non-payment of balance sale consideration within time period fixed by Trial Court does not amount to abandonment of contract and consequent res....
The time for depositing the balance sale consideration in a decree for specific performance is not automatically extended after the restoration of the judgment. The decree becomes inexecutable if the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
