The court established that after passing a decree for specific performance, the court retains control over the decree and has the power to extend the time for performance or rescind the contract under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

1. For the reasons mentioned, delay of two days in refiling this appeal is condoned. CM disposed of. RSA No. 1707 of 2010 (O&M)

This is defendants second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 13.03.2002 was decreed on deposit of balance sale consideration within two months with a further relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering into the possession Of the appellant over the suit property.

2. As per the averments made in the suit, the appellant and the respondent were co-owners in possession in equal share in the suit property. On 13.03.2002, appellant entered into an agreement to sell the half share in the suit-property in favour of plaintiff-respondent for a consideration of Rs.7 lacs and received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as earnest money. An agreement to sell was reduced into writing and the defendant appellant had signed the same in token of its correctness. It was agreed that the possession of the half share in the suit property shall be delivered to the plaintiff-respondent by the appellant on receipt of balance sale consideration. The stipulated date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 31.05.2002. The plaintiff-respondent was having necessary expenses and the balance sale consideration on the stipulated date. He submitted application before the Sub-Registrar, Barnala. The. appellant also appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar, Barnala but respondent refused the execution of the sale deed. Hence the present suit. The appellant contested the suit raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the alleged agreement to sell was got executed by playing fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. It was further alleged that no agreement to sell was executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and no earnest money was paid by him. It was further alleged that value of the property in dispute was more than Rs.29 lacs in which the appellant was having half share, so there was no question to sell the house in question for a consideration of Rs.7 lacs only. It was further alleged that plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of any portion of the house in dispute. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether an agreement dated 13.03.2002 was executed between the parties?OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of 1/2 share of the house in dispute by way of specific performance of agreement dated 13.03.2002?OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for?OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue?OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

6. Whether the agreement dated 13.03.2002 was executed by fraud and mis-representation?PPD

7. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35 A of CPC to the tune of Rs.l0,000/-?OPD

8. Relief.

4. The trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.03.2006 decreed the suit in the following terms:

"In view of the my issue wise findings and above dircussion, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and accordingly the same is decreed with costs and decree for possession by way of specific performance is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and the plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- within two months and the defendant is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per the agreement to sell dated 13.03.2002 Ex.P-1 within a period of two months on deposit of balance sale consideration in the court, failing which the plaintiff shall have a right to get the sale deed executed through the agency of the court, and further decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defe