ORDER :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. This revision is against an order made in E.A. No. 84 of 2008 in E.P. No. 16 of 2003, which was filed under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking rescission of contract of sale on the ground that the decree holder/purchaser has not taken steps to deposit the decree amount within the reasonable time.

2. The facts, that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, are as follows:-

3. The 1st respondent herein has sued for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 25.12.1986 in O.S. No. 1077 of 1988. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 30.09.1991. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 46 of 1992. On 19.12.1994, the appellate Court decreed the suit. The appellate Court did not specify any time for deposit or payment of the balance of sale consideration, while granting the decree for specific performance. Nearly after 8 years, the decree holder filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 16 of 2003 on 21.08.2003. The decree holder did not choose to deposit the balance of sale consideration along with the execution petition also.

4. The execution petition came to be allowed by the Executing Court on 20.11.2007 with a direction to the decree holder to deposit the balance of sale consideration by 18.12.2007. The decree holder did not deposit the balance of sale consideration even by the said date, i.e., 18.12.2007. He instead filed an application in E.A. No. 12 of 2008 on 07.01.2008 seeking extension of time.

5. It is seen from the original records that the said E.A. No. 12 of 2008 was allowed on the very date of filing without notice to the judgment debtor. Though the decree holder sought for a months time to deposit the balance of sale consideration, he did not make the deposit within the said time also. He filed another application in E.A. No. 24 of 2008 on 04.02.2008 seeking further time to deposit the balance of sale consideration.

6. The said E.A. No. 24 of 2008 also came to be allowed on the same day without notice to the judgment debtor. In this backdrop, the judgment debtor filed E.A. No. 84 of 2008 on 01.04.2008 seeking rescission of the contract contending that the decree holder has not deposited the balance of sale consideration within a reasonable time. This petition came to be dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the decree did not fix any time limit and the Court had in exercise of its powers under Section 28 of the Act, granted extension of time for depositing the balance of sale consideration. It is this order of dismissal has been challenged in this revision.

7. I have heard Mr. M.P. Senthil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Loganathan learned counsel for Mr. P. Senthur Pandian, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6.

8. Mr. M.P. Senthil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the refusal to rescind the contract under Section 28 of the Act by the trial Court amounts to refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. He would further point out that this being a suit for specific performance and the relief being a discretionary relief, the plaintiff cannot take his own sweet time to deposit the balance of sale consideration, even where the decree does not prescribe any time limit.

9. He would further submit that since the suit for specific performance does not end with the passing of the decree and Section 28 of the Specific Relief’s Act empowers the Court either to rescind the contract or extend the time for payment of the balance of sale consideration, the Court is seized off the matter till such time the decree is executed in full. The learned counsel would further submit that the plaintiff/decree holder must deposit the balance of sale consideration within a reasonable time from the date of the decree and seek execution. Even though a period of 12 years is available to him for execution of the decree, he cannot wait till the fag end of the limitation period to deposit the balance of sale consideration and s