The court ruled that time was of essence in the contract, and the suit was barred by limitation, thus denying specific performance of the agreement.

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Background ..................................................................................................... 3 B. Judgments of the Trial Court, High Court and this Court ................................ 7 C. Submissions .................................................................................................. 16 D. Grounds for exercising review jurisdiction .................................................... 17 E. Limitation ....................................................................................................... 19 F. Specific performance .................................................................................... 25 G. Lis pendens ............................................................................................... 32 H. Relief ......................................................................................................... 36 1. The petitioner has instituted proceedings under Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 seeking a review of the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court dated 25 August 2022. By the judgment, this Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Telangana dated 23 April 2021 by which the suit for specific performance was partially decreed by directing the registration of the suit property in favour of the petitioner proportionate to the extent of the consideration paid. The issue for the consideration of this Court is whether the judgment of this Court dated 25 August 2022 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record which warrants the exercise of the review jurisdiction.

A. Background

2. On 19 March 1994, Shri Debbad Narayana, Shri Vishweswara Rao (represented by the tenth to twelfth respondents who are his legal representatives), the third respondent, fourth respondent and fifth respondent (“original owners”) entered into an agreement to sell a land admeasuring 127.29 acs to the first, second, sixth, seventh and eight respondents (“vendors”). On the date of the agreement, possession to the extent of 65.23 acs was delivered to the vendors. Upon the payment of the balance sale consideration, the possession of the entire property was delivered. A sale deed was not executed, though the full sale consideration was paid. However, on 28 March 1994, an irrevocable power of attorney was executed in favour of the vendors.

3. On 26 March 1997, the vendors executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner. This agreement will be referred to as the “first agreement to sell”. By the agreement, the first and the second respondents offered to alienate the scheduled property of 38.15 acs1 for a sale consideration of Rs 38,37,500. The agreement notes that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs 5,30,000 in cash and Rs 6,00,000 in cheque as advance and earnest money. The relevant clauses of the agreement to sell are extracted below:

“3. The purchaser shall pay a sum of Rs. 27,07,200/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs seven thousand five

1 “All that the agriculture land bearing Sy. Nos. 301 part, 302, 303, 304 part totally admeasuring Ac. 38- 15 guntas situated at Budwel village, the then Hyderabad West Tq., now Rajendernagar Mandar, R.R.

District, which is bounded by as under:-

East: Sy. No. 381, 380 and 326 West: Sy. No. 54 Village boundary of Irsalgandi North: Sy. No. 381, 380 and 326 South: Sy. No. 300 and 306”

hundred only) towards the balance sale consideration within three months from this date to the parties of the second part herein and if the purchaser does not honour to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 27,07,500/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) within a period of three months from the date of this date, the advance amount paid will be forfeited and this agreement of sale will be cancelled if the vendors fail to furnish the non-encumbrance certificate, income tax exempti