Back
MANOJ MISRA, MANMOHAN
Anand Narayan Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Jagat Dhari – Respondent
Key Points: - Doctrine of merger: dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution does not merge trial court decree; merger applies when higher forum passes order on merit, not when dismissal is due to delay. (!) (!) - Section 28 discretionary power: court may rescind or extend time for payment/deposit; extension may be granted to balance equities and test bona fides; no automatic rescission or automatic extension on deposit, and proceedings remain in suit. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Appellate and execution context: appellate court should specify time to deposit balance; amendment and extension possible at appellate stage; equity-based approach guided by conduct and circumstances. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1[The High Court], dated 05.03.2025, passed in Misc. Petition No. 4682 of 2023, whereby appellant’s petition against the order of 7th Additional District Judge, Satna2[The Execution Court], dated 12.07.2023, passed in Execution Case No. 27A/2017, was dismissed.
Facts
3. Appellant instituted a suit, inter alia, for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property dated 14.11.2011. Under the agreement the respondent agreed to sell 3.75 acres of land @ Rs.16,00,000 per acre, against which, Rs. 2,50,000 was paid by way of advance. Trial Court decreed the suit on 03.03.2017 and thereby directed the appellant to pay balance of the sale consideration to the first respondent (i.e., Defendant No.1) within a month, or to deposit the same in Court. It was also directed that on such payment/ deposit, the first respondent shall execute and register the sale deed.
4. Pursuant to the decree, vide notice dated 01.04.2017, the appellant called upon the judgment-debtor to execute the sale deed by receiving Rs. 57,50,000 (i.e., the balance amount) or els
(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....
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....
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 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.
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.
(1) Recession of contract – Moving of application under Section 28 of S.R. Act for rescinding contract for non-compliance of condition is not mandatory rather optional and immaterial – Court is not p....
The executing court retains jurisdiction to extend time for compliance with a decree for specific performance, even amidst an application for rescission, particularly when the judgment debtor's inact....
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
