JUDGMENT :

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. Defendant petitioner (Duliram Maurya) had entered into an agreement to sale on 3.7.1991 for the land in dispute for a total sale consideration of Rs. 25000/-. On the same day Rs. 13000/- was paid by the plaintiff respondent whereas balance Rs. 12000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale-deed.

2. Plaintiff respondent (Nandram) instituted Original Suit No. 109 of 1993 seeking relief for specific performance of contract/agreement to sale. In the said suit five issues were framed, and the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.1998 had dismissed the suit holding that there had been no transaction for execution of any sale-deed and disputed agreement to sale was in fact a mischief under the garb of loan taken by defendant/petitioner.

3. Against the said judgment, plaintiff respondent filed a Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1998, which was allowed vide judgment/decree dated 22.11.2003 and the suit of plaintiff respondent stood decreed. The appellate court directed the defendant petitioner to execute the sale-deed within two months, while plaintiff respondent was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration within a period of one month.

4. Defendant petitioner filed a second appeal before this Court being Second Appeal No. 235 of 2004. In the said second appeal no interim order was passed, thus, plaintiff respondent initiated execution proceedings on 6.8.2012 which was registered as Execution Case No. 1 of 2012. The second appeal filed by defendant petitioner was dismissed on 23.9.2019. As the plaintiff respondent did not comply the directions of appellate court, as such, an application 26-C was filed by the defendant petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act of 1963’) for dropping the execution proceedings.

5. Plaintiff respondent filed his objections to the said application and also filed application 31-C and 55-C on 17.11.2025 seeking extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration and condoning the delay. By order dated 23.12.2025 application 26-C filed by defendant petitioner was rejected and application 31-C and 55-C filed by plaintiff respondent was allowed. Against the said judgment, Civil Revision No. 3 of 2026 was filed which has been dismissed by the order dated 6.4.2026. Hence, present writ petiton.

6. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for defendant petitioner submitted that the appellate court decreed the suit of plaintiff respondent on 22.11.2003 and plaintiff was required to deposit the balance sale consideration within one month, but neither the amount was deposited nor any execution proceedings were initiated. According to him, it was nearly after nine years that execution proceedings were initiated on 6.8.2012. Though, an application was moved for extension of time but time was not extended by the executing court and application kept pending.

7. He further contended that the second appeal was dismissed on 23.9.2019, which was not contested by plaintiff respondent, and after four years when defendant petitioner moved application 26-C under Section 28 of the Act of 1963 that objection to the said application was filed by plaintiff respondent and it was only on 17.11.2025 that an application seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration was moved, which should not have been allowed by the court below. According to him, extending benefit to plaintiff respondent to deposit sale consideration after more than 20 years will only lead to travesty of justice.

8. He also submitted that specific performance of a contract is an equitable relief, while considering the prayer for rescission of contract or decree or for extension of time to make the deposit, the court must be guided by principle of equity. The decree being sought to be executed is of the year 2003 and execution proceedings were initiated after lapse of nine years and, thereafter, the plaintiff respondent, after the seco