The time fixed for payment of the purchase price in a decree for specific performance is not a condition for granting specific performance, but an incidental direction towards enforcing the decree. The trial court has jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of the purchase price, even if it had fixed a date for the same in the first instance in the decree originally passed.

JUDGMENT - 1. In this second appeal by the original decree-holder from the judgment of the Assistant Judge, Satara, dated. July 12,1966, the contention of the decree-holder is that the Assistant Judge was wrong in setting aside the order of the executing Court condoning delay on the part of the decree-holder in depositing the purchase price by 9 days and that the Darkhast No. 124 of 1965 (which was for carrying out the sale of the property in suit by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder) should proceed.

2. The facts leading to the above Darkhast No. 123 of 1965 are that in Suit No. 70 of 1960 decree for specific performance of agreement for sale of the suit property was passed in favour of the decree-holder on August 27, 1964. The trial Court had directed the decree-holder to deposit in Court Rs. 700/- within 3 months of the decree and that thereafter the defendant should execute the sale deed of the two properties in suit in favour of the decree-holder. The trial Court had given directions regarding inquiry into mesne profits. In Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1964, by judgment and order dated August 13, 1965, the decree of the trial Court was modified and it was provided that the decree-holder should deposit the sum of Rs. 700/- within one month (September 13, 1965). He should also deposit in Court a draft sale deed to be executed for the return of the 3 lands in suit to the decree-holder by the defendant and if the defendant did not execute such a sale deed, the Court should have it executed in the execution proceedings and thereafter pass orders for delivering possession of the suit lands to the decree-holder. It was further directed that the decree-holder would be entitled to recover costs and this should be deducted from the Rs. 700/- deposited in Court and directions should thereafter be given for paying the balance to the defendant

3. The decree-holder failed to deposit the sum of Rs. 700/- in the trial Court on September 13, 1965. He deposited that amount in Court on September 21, 1965, and by the above Darkhast 123 of 1965 stated that he had deposited the sum of Rs. 700/- on September 21 in pursuance of the decree of the appellate Court. He had been unwell and was, therefore, compelled to delay deposit of the above sum for 8/9 days and that delay should be condoned. , He prayed that after such condonation of delay the decree for specific performance granted by the appellate Court should be carried out in the manner mentioned in column 10 of his application.

4. By the order dated March 10, 1966, the executing Court negatived, the contention made by the defendant that the period of one month mentioned in the decree of the appellate Court was an essential and important condition of the decree for specific performance. It negatived the contention that the decree-holder was bound to deposit the sum of Rs. 700 in Court in accordance with the original decree passed by the trial Court. It negatived the contention that the decree-holder was, not entitled to specific performance and the Darkhast was not maintainable, because the sum of Rs. 700 was not deposited on September 13, 1965. It accordingly condoned the delay in . payment as prayed.

5. In Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1966, the learned Assistant Judge accepted the contention made on behalf of the defendant that the executing Court had no power to extend the time fixed for payment of Rs. 700. In that connection, he observed that the provisions of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable to the decree that was made in favour of the decree-holder. He observed that the time for payment of the amount in a suit for specific performance is granted not under the Code but by way of convenience. He also referred to several decisions of different Courts in connection with the true nature of a decree passed in a suit for specific performance. He rightly observed that "the time is granted in a decree for specific performance not under the Code of Civil Procedure and th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document