Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
Shakila W/o Afsarkhan Pathan – Appellant
Versus
Pooja W/o Sunil Patil – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks relief against trial court's order. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments about compliance with specific performance decree. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court examines basis for challenge of execution order. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court rejects petition due to lack of merits. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
“1) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the Impugned Order 24.09.2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi in EP No.80/2018 vide Annexure-A.
2) Issue a writ in the nature of declaration declaring that the proceedings pending before Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi in EP No.80/2018 is illegal.
3) Issue any writ/direction/order of this Hon’ble Court deems necessary.”
2. Sri.Prashant F.Goudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for relief of specific performance was decreed on 30.03.2017 by directing the petitioner/defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of respondent/plaintiff after receiving balance sale consideration amount of Rs.5,12,500/- within a period of six months from the date of judgment, failing which,
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.
The decree for specific performance remains executable despite delays in deposit of balance sale consideration, provided no rescission is sought by judgment debtors.
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....
(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....
(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....
(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....
The doctrine of merger applies to decrees for specific performance, allowing the trial Court to retain jurisdiction even after an appellate decree, and the amended decree resets the timeline for comp....
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.
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
