The main legal point established in the judgment is the equitable nature of the reliefs under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the court's emphasis on the principles of equity in granting specific performance of contracts and allowing rescission of contracts even after a decree has been made.

K.K. TRIVEDI, J.

1. This Civil Revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the judgment-debtors take exception to the order dated 13-12-2012 passed in Misc. Judicial Case No. 241/2007 and 6/2008 by the I Additional District Judge, Bhopal. Facts giving rise to filing of the present revision in brief are that non-applicant/plaintiff/decree-holder (hereinafter referred to as 'decree-holder' for short) filed a suit along with his wife for specific performance of contract of sale of the land in suit against the applicants alleging that an agreement was executed on 18-10-1988 to sell 2.47 acres of land on a consideration of Rs. 2,61,820/- and an amount of 10% of the sale consideration being Rs. 26,182/- was paid as earnest money. Even after making the demand, the applicants failed to fulfill their part of agreement and, therefore, two suits, one in the name of the wife of decree-holder and one in the name of the decree-holder, were required to be filed seeking grant of decree of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The suit was contested by the applicants on numerous grounds. However, the trial Court ultimately reached to the conclusion that the claim for grant of decree was made out and passed judgment and decree on 3rd August, 1995. The Regular Civil Suit No. 45-A/1992 was thus decreed in the following manner:

"(17) In view of the aforesaid decisions, I come to the conclusion that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his case. Therefore, the decree be passed against the defendant No. 1 and 2 and in favour of plaintiff that defendant No. 1 and 2 to execute sale deed of suit land, Survey No. 428/1/3/1, measuring area 2.47 acres, situated at village Badwai, Tahsil and District Bhopal in favour of the plaintiff after receiving remaining consideration of Rs. 2,35,638/- from the plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar within one month of this judgment i.e. from today. The defendants should also pay plaintiff the cost of present suit and Counsel's fee as per schedule. In case of default to execute sale deed by the defendants it should be executed by the Court in favour of the plaintiff."

2. Though the decree was passed, it appears that since the direction, as issued, was not fulfilled, no sale-deed could be executed in favour of the decree-holder. An appeal against the said judgment and decree was preferred before this Court being First Appeal No. 288/1995. The said appeal was admitted and by order dated 2-11-1995 the Division Bench of this Court stayed the execution of the impugned judgment and decree. There were certain conditions imposed while passing the said interim order relating to payment of process. The appeal remained pending before this Court. While passing further orders on interim prayer on 22-1-1998, a direction was given to the applicants to return the total amount of consideration already received under the agreement to the decree-holder with a specific condition that such return shall not be allowed to be urged as a ground against claim for specific performance. In addition, it was also directed that the applicants shall also furnish surety for three years, mesne profits for the land in dispute.

3. The said appeal remained pending before this Court and since judgment and decree granted in the case of the wife of the decree-holder was affirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 287/1995, the appeal filed by the applicants also stand dismissed vide judgment dated 6-2-2007. It appears that an application for execution was thereafter filed on 21-3-2007 by the decree-holder. An application under section 28 of the Act was filed by the applicants on 26-6-2007, which was registered as M.J.C. No. 241/2007. In the execution proceedings, direction was sought to execute the sale-deed on behalf of the applicants conferring title on the decree-holder of the land in suit because of non-compliance of the mandate issued by the decree to the applicants/judgment-debto