The court has the discretion to extend time for compliance of the conditional decree as mentioned in the decree for specific performance.

Defendant in O.S.No.435 of 1984 on the file of First Additional Sub Court, Madurai is the revision petitioner.

2. An ex parte decree was obtained by plaintiff directing defendant to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Though attempt was made to have the ex parte decree set aside, the same was not successful. The decree became final.

3. As per the decree dated 3. 1986, two months time for depositing the balance sale consideration was given. The same was not deposited, and hence plaintiff moved I.A.No.361 of 1990 to extend the time under Sec.148 of Code of Civil Procedure. It was stated in that application that even though there was direction to deposit the balance sale consideration within two months since the defendant moved an application under O.9, Rule 13 petition to have the decree set aside, he was under the bona fide belief that he need deposit the amount only on finalisation of that proceedings. It is also said that the said application was allowed on terms and finally it was dismissed only because petitioner herein did not comply with the terms. The finality was reached only when defendants application was finally dismissed. The amount has been deposited within reasonable time thereafter. He wanted extension of time till the date of deposit.

4. The said application was seriously opposed by petitioner and by the impugned order lower court overruled the objection and allowed extension of time.

5. I heard the counsel on both sides.

6. In Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara (1994)2 S.C.C. 642 the amount was deposited while second appeal was pending and even no application was filed for extension of time. Even though deposit was not made in terms of trial court decree, Honourable Supreme Court did not interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court. In that case their Lordships have held that if application is filed under Sec.28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, the court can exercise discretion as to whether to allow extension or to rescind the contract.

7. In Sardar Mohar Singh v. Mangilal (1997)9 S.C.C. 217 their Lordships have held that principle of Sec.5 of Limitation Act has no application while seeking extension of time under Sec.148 of Code of Civil Procedure. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment, their Lordships have held thus:

“3. Shri. R.S.Suri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the inordinate delay of 7 1/2 years in making the application and in view of the finding given by the executing court that no proper explanation was given by the respondent for the delay, the execution court as well as the High Court committed an error of law in directing extension of time there being no proper explanation. The High Court also was wrong in its conclusion that the decree can be treated to be a preliminary decree and, therefore, the direction can be granted in the final decree. It is also contended that the court has no power to extend time. We do not find force in any of these contentions. It is seen that Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short” the Act“) gives right to the judgment-debtor to file an application to rescind the contract. It reads as under:

”28(1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether as the justice of the case may require.“

4. From the language of Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.28, it could be seen that the court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant of the decree