Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 2102

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Dr. Amit Arya - Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Kumari - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 15069 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 20091 of 2022)
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Natasha Dalmia, AOR Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Anukriti Pareek, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 rescinding of same.
(2) Appeal – Doctrine of Merger applies irrespective of whether appellate Court has affirmed, modified or reversed decree of Trial Court.

Headnote:
(A) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff – Power to extend time granted within decree for performance of its conditions can be extended on such terms as Court may deem fit – However, such non-grant of extension of time cannot be end of transaction – Non-payment of balance sale consideration within time period fixed by Trial Court does not amount to abandonment of contract and consequent rescinding of same – Real test must be to see if conduct of plaintiff will amount to a positive refusal to complete his part of contract – Appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of contract – If order dismissing objections has been set aside and execution petition dismissed, there is no decree that could be executed, and as such, question of extension of time would not arise – Even otherwise, given finding of readiness and willingness, it would be justified to accept that delay of 27 days would not strike at heart of agreement – Judgment of High Court set aside and that of Executing Court dismissing objections filed by respondent restored to its original number and status. [Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28] (Paras 7, 12 and 13)
(B) Appeal – Doctrine of Merger – When a higher forum entertains an appeal on merits, Doctrine of Merger would apply – Doctrine of Merger means that at one point in time, only one decree can subsist – When a decree or order passed by an inferior Court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under law before a superior forum then, though decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy – Doctrine of Merger applies irrespective of whether appellate Court has affirmed, modified or reversed decree of Trial Court. (Paras 9, 10 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 8th August 2022 of High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CR. No. 979 of 2018 (O&M), titled Kamlesh Kumari v. Dr. Amit Arya. The dispute pertains to the execution of an ‘agreement to sell’ between the parties regarding a property located in the District of Panchkula.
Findings of Court:
Position that since execution has been filed beyond the 60-day period on the 87th day and, therefore, the decree cannot be acted upon - is clearly contrary to law.
Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:

The appeal concerns the execution of a decree for specific performance related to an agreement to sell property in Panchkula. The initial decree was in favor of the appellant, requiring the respondent to execute the sale deed upon payment of the remaining consideration within two months (!) (!) .
The dispute involves whether delays beyond the stipulated period invalidate the decree or whether the appellant’s conduct and willingness to perform should be considered. The High Court had dismissed the execution petition on grounds of delay and lack of readiness, whereas the Trial Court had decreed the suit with directions for the respondent to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration (!) (!) .
The appellant paid earnest money and filed an execution application after the decree, but objections were raised regarding the delay in payment and deposit of the balance sale consideration. The objections argued that the delay of over two months rendered the decree inoperative (!) (!) (!) .
The High Court found that the appellant was not ready with the balance amount within the prescribed period, and the deposits made were after significant delays. It emphasized that non-payment within the time frame, without a clear refusal to perform, could lead to rescission of the contract, and the decree became inexecutable (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that non-extension of time by the court, and the absence of an application for extension by the appellant, meant the decree could not be executed once the stipulated period lapsed. The Court also noted that mere filing of an execution application after the deadline does not automatically extend the time for performance (!) (!) .
The doctrine of merger was discussed, indicating that once a higher court has disposed of an appeal or objections, the original decree merges into the final order, and subsequent proceedings must be based on the final decree. If the decree or objections are set aside, the original decree ceases to be operative, and execution cannot proceed unless a fresh decree is passed (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that readiness and willingness to perform are critical in such cases, and delays do not necessarily amount to abandonment or rescission of the contract unless there is a clear indication of refusal to perform (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the Court set aside the High Court's decision and restored the order of the executing court, allowing the execution of the decree for specific performance to proceed, given that the appellant remained ready and willing to perform his contractual obligations (!) (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores that procedural technicalities, such as delays beyond the stipulated period, do not automatically nullify a decree for specific performance if the conduct of the parties indicates continued willingness to perform, and that the doctrine of merger and the absence of court-ordered extensions are significant considerations in such proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
The Court directed that the matter be remanded to the executing court to proceed with execution in accordance with law, reaffirming that a final decree remains operative unless explicitly rescinded or merged through proper legal proceedings (!) .

Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave Granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 8th August 2022 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CR.No.979 of 2018 (O&M), titled Kamlesh Kumari v. Dr. Amit Arya. The dispute pertains to the execution of an ‘agreement to sell’ between the parties regarding a property located in the District of Panchkula. A certain sum of money was deposited as ‘earnest money’, but the matter did not proceed further. A suit for specific performance¹[Civil Suit No. 47 of 2006] was decreed by the Trial Court²[Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Panchkula, by judgment dated 14th May 2011], which was eventually affirmed on second appeal³[RSA 4080 of 2013 (O&M); judgment dated 8th February 2016] by the High Court. Seeking execution, the plaintiff/decree holder, the appellant herein, filed the said application⁴[Execution Application No.35 of 2016], in which the respondent’s objections were dismissed.⁵[Judgment dated 20th January 2018] The appeal against the dismissal of such objections gave rise to the impugned judgment, which accepted the objections and dismissed the execution petition.

BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS

We may, by way of a table, recall some important dates which are essential to putting the dispute in context:

Serial No.	Particulars	Date
1.	Date of Agreement Total sale consideration Rs.9,05,000/-	11th December 2004
2.	Trial Court Judgment	14th May 2011
3.	Judgment in First Appeal	22nd April 2013
4.	Judgment in Second Appeal	8th February 2016
5.	Date of Execution Application	4th July 2016
6.	Deposit worth Rs.7,39,700/- by the decree holder⁶ [Annexure P-5 to the paperbook]	26th August 2016
7.	Deposit worth Rs.65,300/- by the decree holder⁷ [Annexure P-7 to the paperbook]	13th December 2016

3. Facts are to the effect that :

3.1 The parties entered into an agreement to sell a plot of land admeasuring 2 biswas, 10 biswasi situated in Kalka, District Panchkula, on 11th December 2004. To that effect, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as ‘earnest money’.

3.2 The appellant filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the Respondent, restraining her from alienating the suit land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, or otherwise in favour of any third party. In the alternative, it was prayed that the appellant be paid Rs.2,46,000/- with an interest @18% from the date of the agreement till actual payment.

3.3 The Trial Court framed nine issues for consideration, which read as under :

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession, as prayed for.? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for.? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief for the recovery of Rs.2,46,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of its actual realization, as prayed for.? OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit.? OPD.

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form.? OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands,? OPD.

8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped form filling the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD

9. Relief.”

Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the appellant and, consequently, Issue No.4 was rejected. Issue Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 were decided in favour of the appellant as a result of the finding in Issue No.1. Issue No.7 was not pressed by the respondent-defendant but decided against the said party by the Court. The relief granted by the Court, which is the