The Enforcement of a decree depends on timely deposit of balance consideration; the Execution Court retains discretion to grant extensions based on case facts.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 in EA.No.3 of 2025 in EP.No.82 of 2024 in OS.No.146 of 2008. The petitioner was the 3^rd defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement executed between the 1^st defendant and the plaintiff. The suit was decreed. RFA No.537 of 2013 filed by the 1^st defendant was dismissed by Ext.P2 judgment dated 14.11.2024. The decree holder filed EP.No.82 of 2024 soon after the dismissal of the first appeal, in December, 2024 and sought permission to deposit the balance consideration since the 1^st defendant did not accept the same. At that stage, the 3^rd defendant filed EA No.3 of 2025 under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act (‘the Act’ for short) praying that the contract dated 05.06.2007 in the suit should be rescinded for not making the deposit as per the decree. The Execution Court by Ext.P6 order, rejected the application. The original petition has been filed in the above circumstances.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 28 of the Act, there is a requirement to deposit the amount within the time granted by the Court and if no such deposit is made, an application for extension of the time should be filed and unless the Court extends the time, the decree will not be enforceable. The counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Jeevan vs. K.S.Venkata Raman and Another [2017 KHC 2412]; Ishwar (Since Deceased) through Lrs vs. Bhim Singh [2024 KHC 6473]; Ram Lal vs. Jarnail Singh (Now Deceased) through its Lrs and Others [Civil Appeal No.3245 of 2025]; the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Krishnan Ezhuthassan (Died) vs. Joseph [2024 KHC 842] and the judgment of the High Court of Madras in M.Parimalam @ Pariman Konar vs. T.Egammai [2017 SCC OnLine Mad 15572] in support of the contention.

3. In Prem Jeevan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a time is fixed, the balance consideration has to be paid within that time and if no explanation is furnished for the delay in making the deposit, the decree cannot be executed. In Ishwar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering whether the Execution Court has jurisdiction to deal with an application for rescission of contract and extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration and it was held that such an application can be entertained and decided by the Execution Court. The Court further held that while exercising the discretion regarding the extension of time, the Court is required to take into account the facts of the case so as to ascertain whether the default was intentional or not and if there is bona fide reason for the delay, the Court may refuse to rescind the contract and may extend the time. In Ram Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the statutory provision contained in Section 28 and held that the Court is given discretion to rescind the contract or in an appropriate case to even extend the time for paying the purchase money. In Krishnan Ezhuthassan (supra), this Court had reiterated the legal position and held that the trial court is clothed with the powers to grant certain reliefs to the parties which have been enumerated in sub-sections (1) to (3 )of even after passing the decree for specific performance. This Court specifically said that in case there is a failure to pay the money as directed to be paid, the person who has suffered the decree has a right to approach the Court for having the contract rescinded and on such an application being made, the Court may by order rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require. In M.Parimalam (supra), the Madras High Court reiterated the position