A decree for specific performance is a preliminary decree and the court retains control over the suit even after passing the decree. The court has the power to extend the time for payment of the balance consideration as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application raises a short point as to whether and how far a court which had granted a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property on payment of the balance consideration within a time specified, can subsequently extend the time for payment of such balance consideration. There is some divergence in the judicial opinion on the point and, as such, it requires very careful consideration.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff/petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 67 of 1979 for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property against the defendant/opposite party. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge but succeeded on an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 389 of 1982 before the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore. On March 25,1983, the learned Additional District Judge in decreeing the plaintiff's suit directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance of the consideration money to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- (the total consideration being Rs. 10,000/-) within a month from that date. The decree further incorporated a default clause to the effect: "in the event of the plaintiff's default in depositing the balance of the consideration money within a month from this date, that is, 25-3-1983 the plaintiff's claim for specific performance shall be barred for ever. "

( 3 ) THE plaintiff could not deposit the said sum of Rs. 1,000/- within the time so specified and in the meantime the defendant filed an application for review which was registered as Misc. Case No. 3 of 1983. According to the plaintiff, he, being served with the notice of the application for review, came to know of the aforesaid direction for deposit of the balance consideration within a month from the date of the decree and he was neither informed by his lawyer nor had any previous knowledge of such a direction, hence on May 12, 1983, he filed an application for extension of time for depositing the balance consideration.

( 4 ) THIS application was hotly contested by the defendant/opposite party and has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by an order dated June 3,1983, which is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application for extension of time solely on the ground that the time having been specified in a conditional decree, the decree became final on the expiry of the time and, as such, the court had no further jurisdiction to entertain such an application. It was further held that the default not being due to any fault on the part of the court, the court cannot go behind the conditional decree which has since attained finality. Reliance having been placed on the two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882 and K. Kalpana Saraswati v. P. S. Somasundaram, AIR 1980 SC 512, the learned Additional District Judge distinguished the said decisions of the Supreme Court on the ground that the principles laid down therein can have no application in the case of conditional decrees and he relied on certain decisions in that regard including a single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhujang Rao v. Shes Rao, AIR 1974 Bombay 104. That is the order which is being challenged before us in the present revisional application on behalf of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) MR. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the defendant/opposite party in supporting the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge has again relied on two Bench decisions of this court, namely, Bhutnath Das v. Sahadeb Chandra Panja, 66 Cal WN 645 and Bokaro and Ramgarh Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 68 Cal WN 1117. It may be pointed out here and now that the decision in Bhutnath's case materially supports the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge.

( 6 ) MR. Banerji appearing in support of the present revisional application has strongly contended that in