An application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can only be filed within three years from the date when the right to apply for rescission accrues. The concept of 'reasonable time' is crucial in the context of specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property.

ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/defendants, against the order dated 05.10.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, in I.A.No.29 of 2020 in O.S.No.33 of 2013 [O.S.No.36 of 2001 (OLD)].

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit viz., O.S.No.36 of 2001 (OLD) and the respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff in that suit.

3. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the Civil Revision Petition.

4. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition, are set out below.

The petitioners herein and the respondent No.1 entered into an agreement of sale dated 29.12.1997 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property and received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 herein has filed the suit for specific performance of said agreement of sale vide O.S.No.36 of 2001 [O.S.No.33 of 2013 (new number)]. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 08.11.2001. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 deposited the balance sale consideration on 26.09.2005 to the credit of the suit. Thereafter, seeking to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.11.2001, the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.67 of 2013 along with an application to condone the delay vide I.A.No.151 of 2008 (Old I.A.No.102 of 2006). The said Interlocutory Applications were allowed vide order dated 13.03.2013 by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 herein filed C.R.P.Nos.1926 and 1927 of 2013 before this Hon’ble High Court, and the said Civil Revision Petitions were allowed on 19.07.2013. Aggrieved by the order passed in the said C.R.Ps., the petitioners herein have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and filed S.L.P. (C) Nos.35968 and 35969 of 2013. The said S.L.Ps were also dismissed on 25.07.2016 and the Review Petition filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed on 08.12.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present I.A.No.29 of 2020 under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking to rescind the agreement of sale dated 29.12.1997 for non-deposit of the balance sale consideration within time and on other grounds. The trial Court vide the impugned order dated 05.10.2021 has dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No.1 has not stipulated the time period within which the balance sale consideration was to be deposited by the respondent No.1 i.e., plaintiff in the suit.

6. Sri J. Prabhakar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.S.R. Avadhani, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that the order passed by the trial Court is without any application of mind, contrary to the well established principles of law laid down by the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases and also the provision of Section 28 of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that as the ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 08.11.2001, having regard to the provision of Section 28 of the Act and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Limitation Act’), the respondent No.1 ought to have deposited the balance sale consideration within a period of three years from the date of decree or three years after the expiry of the time mentioned in the agreement of sale dated 29.12.1997. But, the respondent No.1 took his own sweet time and deposited the balance sale consideration after more than four years from the date of obtaining the ex parte decree. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the trial Court, without adverting to the above factum of not depositing the balance sale