IMPORTANT POINT
The executing court retains jurisdiction to extend time for compliance with a decree for specific performance, even amidst an application for rescission, particularly when the judgment debtor's inaction contributes to the delay.

ORDER :

1. The short question involved in this revision is, whether the executing court is justified in holding that the agreement to sale of immovable property dated 8-3-2008, which culminated into decree for specific performance of contract, has rescinded in terms of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the applicant/decree holder is not entitled for any relief, by rejecting his application and granting the application filed by non-applicant No.1 herein/judgment debtor?

2. The aforesaid question arises in the following factual backdrop: -

2.1) The civil suit filed by the applicant herein/plaintiff on 21-4-2009 claiming specific performance of contract pursuant to the agreement to sale dated 8-3-2008 in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.452, area 0.310 hectare, situate at Village Anjora, District Durg was decreed on 31-7-2010 vide Annexure A-2 with a stipulation that defendant No.1/non-applicant No.1 herein will execute the sale deed after obtaining Rs. 16 lakhs and after demarcation of the suit land, in favour of the plaintiff and with two other conditions. The first application for execution was filed on 2-11-2010 which was not duly constituted and fresh application was filed on 13-2-2015 vide Annexure A-3. During the pendency of the application for execution, the applicant herein has filed an application before the executing court stating inter alia that he is ready with an amount of Rs. 16 lakhs and he has also filed the statement of account that he has Rs. 16 lakhs with him and sought a direction for demarcation of land as per the decree of the trial Court and during the pendency of that application, after almost two years on 21-3-2018, the judgment debtor/non-applicant No.1 herein has also filed an application for dismissal of execution case on the ground that the applicant herein/decree holder has not deposited the amount and not complied with the decree and therefore decree be rescinded. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 5-9-2018, the executing court has dismissed the application of the decree holder/applicant herein on the ground of delay by holding that the decree holder has failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 16 lakhs as per the decree dated 31-7-2010 which has been sought to be challenged by way of this revision and granted the application filed by judgment debtor.

3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/decree holder, would submit that the executing court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application of the applicant herein/decree holder, as the decree holder is having the amount and is ready and willing to pay the amount, but since the land has not been demarcated by the judgment debtor as directed by the trial Court, he could not pay the amount, as the judgment debtor is entitled for the amount only after demarcation of land and in fact, the application for direction for demarcation of land is the application for extension of the decree to direct the judgment debtor to get the land demarcated and for the plaintiff to deposit the decretal amount, as such, the executing court has committed illegality/acted with material irregularity in rejecting the application which deserves to be allowed. He would further submit that the application of the applicant/decree holder dated 23-8-2016 has to be accepted as the application for extension of time to both the parties and even no written application is required for extension of time as the condition precedent for the court to grant extension of time and it can be oral. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the matter of Chithambaran Ponnappan v. Viswambaran and another, AIR 2001 Ker 205 in support of his contention.

4. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel appearing for non-applicants No.1 & 2/judgment debtor, would submit that the executing court is absolutely justified in rejecting the application of the applicant herein/decree holder, as the decree holder has not complied with the condit