INTRODUCTORY:

Whether the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is entitled to get the decree executed, after a period of 25 years, notwithstanding his failure to pay the balance amount, within the time permitted by the Trial Court, is the core issue that arises for consideration in these Civil Revision Petitions filed by the decree holder against the orders passed by the Executing Court, allowing the applications filed by the judgment debtors, for rescission of contract under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

THE FACTS IN NUTSHELL:

2. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.31 of 1981 before the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram. It was a suit for specific performance. The suit was laid on the strength of a sale agreement dated 27 August, 1976, executed by defendants 1 and 2.

3. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 24 August, 1982. The defendants 2 and 3 filed first appeals in A.S.Nos.494 of 1984 and 110 of 1985, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24 August, 1982, in O.S.No.31 of 1981. The first appeals were dismissed by the High Court, by judgment and decree dated 19 November, 1998.

4. The petitioner, long after the disposal of first appeals, deposited the balance sale consideration on 09 January, 2007.

5. The petitioner filed E.P.No.15 of 2007, before the learned District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, for execution of the decree in O.S.No.31 of 1981. In the meantime, the defendants 1 and 2 died and their legal representatives were impleaded in E.P.No.15 of 2007.

6. While so, the defendants 3 to 7 filed an application in E.A.No.159 of 2010, invoking Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for rescission of contract. Similarly, E.A.No.233 of 2010 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant for rescission of contract.

7. The learned Executing Judge allowed the applications in E.A.Nos.159 of 2010 and 233 of 2010 and as a consequence, the Execution Petition was dismissed.

8. The order in E.A.No.233 of 2010, rescinding the contract, is challenged in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1006 of 2012. The order in E.A.No.159 of 2010 is challenged in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1007 of 2012. The order, dismissing the Execution Petition in E.P.No.15 of 2007, is challenged in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1008 of 2012.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no specific direction in the decree in O.S.No.31 of 1981 specifying the time for depositing the balance amount. According to the learned counsel, the Trial Court permitted the petitioner to deposit the balance sale consideration and immediately, after issuing the challan, amount was deposited on 09 January, 2007. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the permission granted by the Trial Court to deposit the money, the very application filed by the respondents in E.A.Nos.159 and 233 of 2010 are not maintainable.

10. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents justified the impugned orders. According to the learned counsel, before permitting the petitioner to deposit the balance sale consideration, notice was not issued to any of the respondents herein. The petitioner, even after the dismissal of first appeals, failed to deposit the sale consideration and the same resulted in filing applications by the respondents under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

THE ISSUE:

11. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the learned Executing Judge was correct in invoking Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to rescind the contract, consequent to the failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the sale consideration, within the prescribed period or within a reasonable time after the dismissal of appeals.

ANALYSIS:

12. The suit in O.S.No.31 of 1981 was filed by the petitioner for specific performance. The Trial Court passed a decree on 24 August, 1982, directing the defendants therein to execute the sale deed, on receipt of balance sale consideration, withi