The court retains control over the decree for specific performance, and the plaintiff is obligated to be ready and willing to perform. Wilful default in not paying the balance sale consideration within the time allowed by the decree justifies rescission of the contract.

Both these revisions are by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 104 of 1988 in which a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale was passed. The decree was on 31-1-1990 and the defendant was directed to execute sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff within one month from that date and that loo after receiving the balance sale consideration. It was further provided that if the defendant failed to execute the sale deed as ordered, the plaintiff will be at liberty to deposit the balance sale consideration in court and get the sale deed executed through court in execution of the decree. The cost was also awarded to the plaintiff. Plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 23,000/- as ordered in the decree. Thereafter, on 11-7-1990, the defendant, through his lawyer, sent Ext. A1 notice, intimating the plaintiff that he is ready to execute the sale deed on 1-8-1990 or on any other day convenient to her before 15-8-90 and further requested the plaintiff to be ready with the money for executing the sale deed. Though the plaintiff received this notice, she did not send any reply. On 4-10-1990, the defendant filed E.A 506 of 1990 for a declaration that the plaintiff is not entitled to execute the decree due to the non-compliance by her to pay the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated in the decree as also in pursuance to Ext. A1 notice issued by him. Thereafter, on 20-11-1990, the plaintiff filed LA. No. 1387 of 1990 for amendment of the decree alleging that the costs shown in the decree is not correct and for incorporating the correct amount of costs due to her. That application was allowed on 24-1-1991. Thereafter on 5-8-1991 the plaintiff filed an execution petition for executing the decree and deposited the balance amount of Rs. 23,000/- on 9-8-1991.

2. To the Execution Petition the judgment-debtor filed an objection con tending that he was ready and willing t execute the sale deed after receiving the sale consideration as provided in the decree, but the decree-holder was not ready. He further alleged that he had even issued a lawyer's notice to the decree-holder demanding her to inform a convenient date to execute the sale deed either on 1st August, 1990 or on any other date before 15-8-1990 and that he will be present before the Sub Registrar for executing the document. In that view of the matter he contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to execute the decree. As mentioned earlier, the defendant had already filed E.A. No. 506 of 1990 for a declaration that the decree is not executable in the circumstances mentioned above.

3. The execution court considered the E.P and came to the conclusion that the decree-holder was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed by paying the balance sale consideration and further held that the judgement-debtor is entitled to get the contract rescinded as provided for in S.28 of the Specific Relief Act. Accordingly the E.P was dismissed holding that the decree is not executable. Consequently the court allowed E.A. No. 506 of 1990 and held that the decree is not executable. Against these two orders the decree-holder has come up in revision.

4. The objection to the execution petition as also E. A. 506 of 1990 in effect was treated as an application by the defendant under S.28 of the Specific Relief Act. Counsel for the revision petitioner con tended that an application under S.28 ought to have been filed on the trial side and not before the execution court; he also contended that no circumstances are brought out satisfying the requirements of S.28 for rescinding the contract as was done by the execution court and that there was no wilful default on her part in not paying the balance sale consideration as ordered in the decree. It was also contended by counsel that the decree did not provide any lime-limit for payment of the balance sale consideration and as such S.28 is not applicable at all.

5.I shall first co