ORDER :

G. Shyam Prasad, J.

1. This civil revision petition is arising out of the order dated 06.06.2019 passed in E.A. No. 118 of 2016 in E.P. No. 7 of 2016 in O.S. No. 9 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku.

2. The parties are arrayed in this revision petition as they are arrayed in the execution petition as petitioner and respondent.

3. The short point that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is that whether the order passed in EA No. 118 of 2016 is perverse and is liable to be set aside?

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and respondent.

5. The execution application referred to above is filed by the revision petitioner, who is the judgment debtor. The respondent is a decree holder in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.

6. Original Suit No. 9 of 1984 was decreed on 30.06.1994 granting the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff with a direction to the respondent to execute registered sale deed within ONE month's time. On appeal preferred by the defendant, the appeal was dismissed on 29.04.2014. The present execution petition is filed on 8.09.2016.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the execution petition is filed beyond the Limitation imposed under the decree of one month. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the appellate court simply confirmed the judgment of the trial court, but, no time limit is fixed for execution of the decree. It is the main contention of the petitioners that the respondent cannot file the execution petition beyond Limitation for execution of the decree at his whims and fancies.

8. It is further argued that the execution petition was filed after 2 years 4 months of the passing of the decree by the respondent, without seeking for extension of time showing any sufficient cause for depositing the amount on 27.10.2015. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act the respondent ought to have filed an application for extension of time for execution of the agreement of sale.

9. Placing reliance on the above section it is argued that the respondent was not diligent enough to prosecute his decree after the disposal of the appeal and therefore the decree became in executable. The noncompliance of the condition imposed in the decree of depositing of the balance of sale consideration within one month's time, without seeking for extension of time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, amounts to recession of contract, therefore, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. The points arise for consideration in this revision is as follows:

1. Whether there is a recession of contract?

2. Whether the respondent is required to seek for extension of time under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act?

3. To what relief?

Point No. 1.

11. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, the respondent has to obtain permission for extension of time for execution of specific performance of agreement of sale. Section 28 of the said Act is relevant to refer to here for better appreciation of the facts of the case.

12. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under:

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 cas