Point of Law : Section 28 of Specific Relief Act 1963 says “such further period as Court may allow” thereby empowering Courts to extend period for deposit of amount specified - However, there cannot be any doubt that such extension should be within reasonable limits as discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not capriciously.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 17.11.2017 in I.A. No. 371 of 2010 in O.S. No. 21 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. The Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the Respondent is defendant is the suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri.

4. The petitioners filed the suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners on 31.05.2010 with a direction to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 08.02.2007 within two months from the date of decree and judgment, dated 31.03.2010. But, the petitioners could not deposit the said amount.

5. The petitioners filed a petition in I.A. No. 371 of 2010 in O.S. No. 21 of 2007 seeking to extend the time from 30.05.2010 to 21.10.2010 to deposit the balance of sale consideration. The respondent resisted the request of the petitioners by filing counter. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri on consideration of the material available on record, dismissed the said application by order, dated 17.11.12017. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the extension of time is a discretionary power of the court as contemplated under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act and as such, the Court below ought to have extended the time in depositing the amount by exercising the discretionary power, as there is no inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners. The learned counsel further submits that the Court below erred in not considering the bona-fides of the petitioners, as the petitioners filed demand drafts 8 in number along with a Memo in C.F. No. 2916 of 2010, dated 22.10.2010. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that the 2nd Appeal filed by the respondent in S.A. No. 732 of 2012 is pending.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of delay of 144 days in depositing the amount as per the decree and judgment, dated 31.03.2010. He further submits that if the petitioners interested to deposit the amount in Court, he should have filed petition for extension of time in depositing the amount into the Court on or before 30.05.2010 (i.e.) stipulated time and sought to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied the following decisions to support the contention of the petitioners:

(1) Yeshoda vs. K. Nagarajan, 1996 (9) LAWS (SC) 29

(2) Mandavilli Sujatha vs. Bartam Vykuntarao and Others, 2000 (1) ALD 237

(3) K. Balaraj vs. B. Mallaiah @ Mallesh, 1996 (2) ALT 170

9. The learned counsel for the respondent also relief the following decisions to support the contentions of the respondent:

(1) Ali Jaffar vs. V. Venkata Reddy, 2012 (3) ALT 202

(2) P. Ravi Prasad Goud vs. P. Krishna and Others, 2010 (6) ALT 197

10. We have carefully considered the submissions of the both the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the respondent and perused the record.

11. This Court in Mandavilli Sujatha’s case (supra) had dealt with the identical issue allowed the Civil Revision Petition and held at Para Nos. 12 and 13 as extracted herein-under:

“12. In fact, Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act specifically mentions about the decree holder depositing the balance of sale consideration within the period prescribed under the decree or such further period as the Court may allow.

13. Thus, it is apparent that the learned Judge erred in holding that he had no power to consider the application for extension of time for payment of balance of sale consideration beyond the period stipulated under the decree. It is obvious that the learned senior Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him