Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Balbir Singh & Anr. Etc – Appellant
Versus
Baldev Singh (D) Through His Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(J.B. Pardiwala, J.)
1. Leave granted.
2. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are same, the parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. These appeals arise from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 09.09.2022 in Civil Revision No. 6706 of 2019, Civil Revision No. 6952 of 2019, Civil Revision No. 6980 of 2019 and Civil Revision No. 7053 of 2019 respectively by which the High Court rejected all the four revision applications filed by the original defendants by a common order and thereby affirmed the order passed by the executing court permitting the original plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration and rejecting the application filed by the defendants (judgment debtors) under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (For short, “the Act”) for rescission of contract.
4. The facts of this litigation giving rise to these appeals as recorded by the High Court in its impugned judgment read thus:
The court affirmed that the executing court retains discretion to extend time for deposit of sale consideration under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, and the doctrine of merger applies to decr....
The decree for specific performance remains executable despite delays in deposit of balance sale consideration, provided no rescission is sought by judgment debtors.
Failure to pay the balance sale consideration within the set time does not abandon the contract; the court retains discretion to extend payment timelines under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.
(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....
A party seeking specific performance must have clean hands; failure to disclose subsequent agreements does not negate execution of prior decrees, provided timelines for compliance are met.
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.
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....
Agreement to sell – Provisions to grant specific performance of agreement are quite stringent – Equitable considerations come into play.
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
