The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the power to grant extension of time for compliance with a decree for specific performance and the justification for rescinding an agreement based on the failure to pay the balance sale consideration.

JUDGMENT :

GURBIR SINGH, J.

1. Challenge in this revision petition is to order dated 17.08.2019, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathin (Annexure P-4), whereby the application filed by respondent no.1 for recession of judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017 has been allowed.

2. The brief facts, relating to the passing of the impugned order, are that respondent no.1 herein - Jai Chand son of Munshi entered into an agreement to sell dated 02.11.2011 with the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance. Vide judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017, the said suit was decreed. It was held therein that the petitioner was entitled for specific performance of the agreement dated 02.11.2011, for payment of balance sale consideration and respondent no.1 was restrained from interfering in possession over the suit property. Respondent no.1 was also directed to get the sale deed executed in respect of the suit property in favour of the petitioner and proforma respondent no.2, within one month of passing of judgment. Otherwise, the petitioner would be at liberty to get the sale deed executed in his favour as per agreement.

3. Respondent no.1 moved an application that he approached the petitioner many times for payment of balance sale consideration and execution of sale deed in his favour but he neither paid the balance sale consideration nor asked respondent no.1 for execution and registration of the sale deed, whereas the petitioner was required to pay the balance sale consideration within 45 days. So, the petitioner was not willing to perform his part of the agreement. Under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, if any decree-holder fails to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed registered, then in that case, judgment and decree passed in his favour is liable to be set aside.

4. In reply to the above-said application, the petitioner denied the allegations and stated that he approached respondent no.1 to come present before the office of Sub-Registrar, Hathin and receive the balance sale consideration to execute the sale deed and get the same registered but respondent no.1 avoided the matter on one pretext or the other.

5. After hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by respondent no.1 and agreement to sell dated 02.11.2011 was rescinded, subject to the condition that respondent no.1 would repay the money received by him as sale consideration to the petitioner, upon restoration of possession by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after passing decree for specific performance, the Court does not become functus officio. The Court has power to enlarge the time for execution of decree or to extend time for compliance of the conditional decree, as mentioned in the decree for specific performance. There was no time fixed in the decree for deposit of the payment of the balance sale consideration and no notice was given by the judgment-debtor to pay the said amount. So, the learned Trial Court could not rescind the agreement to sell in question. The petitioner was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The balance amount has already been deposited, in pursuance of the order dated 18.11.2019, passed in the present revision petition. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sardar Mohar Singh vs. Mangilal @ Mangtya – 1997 (9) SCC 217, decided on 15.01.1997.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has argued that the decree in question was passed on 01.07.2017 and the sale deed was to be got executed in respect of the suit property within one month. The petitioner did not pay the balance amount within stipulated period nor moved any application for extension of time to pay the said amount. So, learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order, thereby allowing application moved by respondent no.1, rescinding the agreement to sell dated 02.11.2011. He has relied upo