Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
Lakhmi Chand (deceased) through LRs - Petitioners
Versus
M/s Big Jo's Estate Limited - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 5122 of 2017
Decided On : 13-11-2017
Specific Relief Act - Rescission of Contract - Section 28 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act - The court discussed the discretionary power of the court to enlarge the time for payment or performance of conditions mentioned in the decree for specific performance. The court highlighted key legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that the court retains control over the decree until it is complied with and that there is no automatic rescission of the agreement due to delay in execution of the sale deed unless there was a strict stipulation of time in the agreement and decree of specific performance. The court also referred to various judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The defendants, legal heirs of the seller, raised objections and challenged the suit, leading to a series of appeals and petitions. The lower court decreed the suit for specific performance, and the defendants approached higher courts, but their appeals were dismissed. Subsequently, the execution petition was filed, and the judgment debtor filed an application seeking rescission of the contract, which was dismissed by the Executing Court. The judgment debtor then filed a petition challenging this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to ask for an extension to deposit the balance sale consideration and that there were no disentitling circumstances produced by the defendants. It noted that the plaintiff was in no way responsible for the delay and had keenly participated in the proceedings to enforce the agreement. The court also highlighted that the defendants had not shown readiness to execute the agreement and that the plaintiff had ultimately deposited the amount, executed the sale deed, and taken possession.
Issues: The main issue was whether the judgment debtor was entitled to rescind the contract due to the delay in depositing the balance sale consideration and whether the Executing Court had erred in dismissing their application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to ask for an extension to deposit the balance sale consideration and that there were no disentitling circumstances produced by the defendants. It emphasized that the defendants had not shown readiness to execute the agreement and that the plaintiff had ultimately deposited the amount, executed the sale deed, and taken possession. The court also highlighted the discretionary power of the court to enlarge the time for payment or performance of conditions mentioned in the decree for specific performance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the defendants could not seek rescission of the contract after five years of the date of the decree and that there was no merit in the petition.
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2017 (Annexure P-21) as the application filed under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act seeking rescission of the contract was dismissed. The petitioners are also aggrieved of the order dated 21.7.2017 (Annexure P-22) vide which their objections to the execution petition had been dismissed.
2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the contract entered with Lakhmi Chand on 28.5.2005. The total consideration agreed was Rs. 3,10,20,000/- i.e. @ 48.00 lacs per acre. Out of the sale amount, a sum of Rs. 31,02,000/- was paid as earnest money. The last date for execution of the sale deed was agreed to be 27.2.2006. The sale deed was not executed. The plaintiff filed a suit on 24.3.2006 stating that he appeared before the Sub Registrar with the balance sale consideration but the defendant did not turn up and he was ready to perform his part of the agreement.
3. The defendants who are the legal heirs of Lakhmi Chand took the plea that the suit was not maintainable and it was a case of suppression of material facts. The suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff was a limited company and there was no resolution in favour of the Director through whom the suit had been filed. It was pleaded that Lakhmi Chand had suffered a decree in their favour and he was not the owner of the property and the agreement was fabricated. It was pleaded that they were reserving their right to initiate criminal complaint against Manik Ram who was alleged to be a witness to the agreement and the agreement had been entered into after hatching a conspiracy and fraud.
4. After a complete trial, the lower Court held the consent decree to be sham. The suit was decreed on 13.6.2011.
5. The defendant aggrieved by the judgment, preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed. Thereafter the defendant approached the High Court with a Regular Second Appeal which was dismissed. The defendants then approached the Supreme Court and their Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 25.2.2016.
6. After the dismissal of the RSA, the execution petition was filed. The decree holder filed an application seeking permission to deposit the balance amount. At the same time the judgment debtor filed an application for rescission of the contract. The Executing Court passed an order dated 6.2.2016 on the application filed under Order XXI Rule 1(a) CPC allowing the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration and also observed that it would not in any way affect the merits of the execution or the objections raised by judgment debtor. The case was adjourned to 27.4.2016. On 27.4.2016, the decree holder made a statement that he was not aware of the order passed on 6.2.2016 and undertook to inform his client and deposit the amount. The Executing Court allowed the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration on or before 18.5.2016. The judgment debtor filed a revision in the High Court challenging the order dated 6.2.2016 (Annexure P-17) and 27.4.2016 (Annexure P-19). This Court vide order dated 27.4.2017 (Annexure P-20) disposed of the revision saying that there were no grounds to interfere but gave liberty to the Executing Court to decide the application filed under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. The Executing Court later dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtor on 21.7.2017. It is against that order that the judgment debtor has filed this petition.
7. The main ground for assailing the order is that the balance sale consideration was to be deposited within two months of the judgment and decree and the amount had been deposited in 2016 and there was no stay in the appeal pending before the District Judge and the Executing Court could not have allowed the decree holder to deposit the amount when they had moved an application for rescission of the contract. It was pleaded tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
