In a suit for specific performance of contract, the court which has passed the decree has ample jurisdiction to extend the time considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but such extension cannot be granted mechanically and should be done only in rare cases to prevent manifest injustice.

S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.

1. This civil revision application is directed against an order dated 15.2.96 by reason of which the learned court below has directed the petitioner-judgment debtor to execute the sale deed in favour of the opposite party/decree holder on accepting Rs. 1200.00 and on failure of which the opposite party has been directed to deposit the said amount in the court for enabling the court to pass order for registration of the sale deed.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The opposite party/plaintiff filed a title suit No. 73/84 for a decree for specific performance of contract stating, inter alia, that the petitioner/defendant entered into an agreement with the opposite party/plaintiff on 9th July, 1977 by which it was agreed that the petitioner would execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the opposite party if the opposite party tenders consideration amount of Rs. 1000.00 to him latest by 8.7.84. It is stated that the plaintiff/opposite party wanted to tender the said consideration amount to the petitioner on 8.7.80, 8.7.83, 8.6.84 and even on 28.6.84 with a request to execute the sale deed in his favour but the defendant deferred the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately the petitioner having refused to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed the suit expressing his readiness and willingness to pay, the consideration money of Rs. 1000.00 to the defendant but as the defendant is not willing to perform his part of contract, the plaintiff had no option but to file the said suit.

3. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement and admitted the existence of the agreement between them but contending that the suit was not maintaibable and is barred by limitation. The defendant/petitioners case was that the plaintiff /opposite party never tendered the consideration amount and, as such, there was no question of executing the sale deed.

4. The learned trial court decreed the suit and orders, inter alia, as follows:-

The defendant is hereby directed to execute and register the sale deed with respect to the suit land on receipt of consideration amount of Rs. 1000.00 from the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of this order failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the same executed and registered through the process of the court on depositing the consideration amount of Rs. 1000.00 at his cost which shall be binding upon the defendant.

5. The judgment is dated 26.2.86 and the decree was signed on 10.3.86. It appears that, thereafter, after lapse of about nine years the plaintiff/opposite party filed execution case No. 1/95 on 18.7.95 praying therein for execution of the decree passed on 10.3.86.

6. The petitioner raised objection and by overruling his objection, by the impugned order dated 15.2.96 the learned court below has extended the time for execution of the sale deed and directed the opposite party/plaintiff to deposit the total amount of Rs. 12, 00.00 to the defendant/petitioner within 15 days and defendant/petitioner was directed to execute the said sale deed. It was further ordered that if the defendant/petitioner refuses to execute the decree, the plaintiff would deposit the said amount in court and the court will get the sale deed registered.

7. Mr. R.N. Sahay, counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the court below has acted in excess/ of its jurisdiction in extending the time in a case in which the decree for specific performance was passed as far back as in the year, 1986. According to him, after the said decree was passed in favour of the opposite party, no attempt was made by him either to tender the said amount to the petitioner or even on alleged refusal by the plaintiff, the said amount was not deposited in court as directed in the decree itself. In support of his contention that under these circumstances the court can/not extend time mechanically, Mr. Sahay has relied in the case of Bank of India V/s. Ja