Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2521

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Robert Bruce – Appellant
Versus
R.Raja Jeyasekhar (died) – Respondent
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2070 of 2019 & 110 of 2020 C.R.P(MD).No.2070 of 2019
Decided on : 26-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Mohanasundaram
For the Respondent: Mr.K.N.Thambi

The court ruled that the application for extension of time for depositing sale consideration is valid, given the decree holder's consistent readiness and ongoing appeals affecting timelines.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 148 and 28 of the Specific Relief Act - The decree holder sought extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration, while the judgment debtor sought to rescind the sale agreement. Both applications dismissed by trial Court. (Para 1)

(B) Specific Performance - The decree holder maintained readiness and willingness to complete the contract despite delays caused by ongoing appeals; hence, extension of time is warranted. (Para 17)

(C) Limitation - The decree's merger principle establishes that limitation runs from the appellate court's decree, and the delay was justified given the ongoing nature of appeals. (Paras 13, 18)

Facts of the case:
The appellant had entered into a sale agreement with the respondent, which was contested after the respondent sold the property to another party. The plaintiff deposed the amount late due to ongoing appeals affecting timelines. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The applications for time extension were improperly dismissed; the decree holder had been continuously ready to perform the contract. The rescission was deemed without merit. (Paras 20, 21)

Issues: Whether the decree holder's application for extension was barred by limitation and if the rescission sought by the judgment debtor was justified. (Paras 10, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that applications in the same suit should be entertained as interlocutory matters, and the decree holder's readiness during appeals justified time extension, thereby allowing the appeal. (Paras 16, 21)

Result: CRP(MD).No.2070 of 2019 allowed; CRP(MD).No.110 of 2020 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. both revision petitions arise from interconnected interlocutory applications. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the factual background of the sale agreement and subsequent legal proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments for decree holder regarding extension of time and limitation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. arguments of judgment debtor opposing extension of time and asserting limitation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. court's analysis on jurisdiction and readiness. (Para 14)
6. court analysis of jurisdiction over decree and time-bar concerns. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. conclusion allowing crp(md).no.2070 of 2019 and dismissing crp(md).no.110 of 2020. (Para 20 , 21)

ORDER :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

1. Both the revision petitions arise out of two Interlocutory Applications filed in O.S.No.148 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. I.A.No.436 of 2018 was filed by the decree holder under Section 148 of C.P.C seeking extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration. I.A.No.446 of 2018 was filed by the second defendant under Section 28 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT to rescind the sale agreement. Both the applications have been dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the above said revision petitions have been filed.

2. Since the issues involved in both the revision petitions are interconnected, they are heard together and disposed off by way of a common order.

(A) The undisputed facts are as follows:

3. The first defendant in the suit is the absolute owner of the property. He had entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 18.03.2005 wherein the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.44,025/-. The plaintiff had paid an advance amount of Rs.5000/-. However, the first defendant had sold away the property to the second defendant by way of a sale deed dated 15.04.2005. Hence, the plaintiff had filed the above said suit on 01.06.2005 for the relief of specific performance as against both the defendants.

4. After contest, the suit was decreed on 23.03.2006 granting two months time to the plaintiff to deposit the sale consideration. The second defendant had filed A.S.No.74 of 2006 before the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram and the same was dismissed on merits on 05.03.2007. The second defendant had filed S.A(MD).No.856 of 2007 before the High Court and this Court was pleased to set aside the judgement and decree and remitted it back to the First Appellate Court. After remand, the first appeal again dismissed on merits on 27.09.2011. Challenging the same, the second defendant had filed S.A(MD).No.1207 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by this Court on merits on 06.08.2013.

5. After dismissal of the second appeal by this Court, the plaintiff/decree holder had filed I.A.No.436 of 2018 on 25.04.2012 under Section 148 of C.P.C seeking extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration. While the said application was pending, the second defendant/judgment debtor had filed I.A.No.446 of 2018 on 23.01.2018 under Section 28 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT to rescind the sale agreement on the ground that the decree holder has not deposited the amount within the time frame fixed by the trial Court and the decree has become time barred. Both the applications were heard independently by the trial Court and separate orders were passed on 28.08.2019 dismissing both the applications. Challenging the same, the decree holder as well as the judgement debtor have filed the above revision petitions.

(B) Contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the decree holder are as follows:

6. The learned counsel contended that after remand, the first appeal was dismissed on 27.09.2011 and within 7 months from the said date, the application seeking extension of time was filed on 23.04.2012. He had further contended that the second defendant had immediately filed S.A.(MD).No.1207 of 2011 on 20.03.2012 and the same was dismissed on merits only on 06.08.2013. Only after disposal of the appeal by the Appella