Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 8962
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS – Appellant
Versus
BHIM SINGH – Respondent
C.A. No.-010193-010193 - 2024
The Execution Court has jurisdiction to extend time for deposit of balance sale consideration and to rescind contracts under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, treating applications as part of the original suit.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 28 - Jurisdiction of Execution Court - The Execution Court has jurisdiction to extend time for deposit of balance sale consideration and to rescind the contract under Section 28(1) - The decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate court, but the Execution Court retained jurisdiction as it was the court of first instance. (Paras 14-20)
(B) Execution of Decree - The Execution Court must treat applications under Section 28 as applications in the original suit, not merely on the execution side - The decree-holders displayed intention to perform their part of the contract, justifying the extension of time for deposit. (Paras 20-30)
Facts of the case:
The respondents sought specific performance of an agreement to sell property dated 18.05.2005, with Rs.9.77 lacs paid in advance. The trial court partially decreed the suit, leading to an appeal where specific performance was granted, but the appellants failed to execute the sale deed. The Execution Court allowed the decree-holders to deposit the balance consideration, which the appellants contested.
Findings of Court:
The Execution Court had jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit and to deal with rescission applications as part of the original suit.
Issues: (i) Jurisdiction of the Execution Court regarding rescission and extension of time; (ii) Whether the application should be treated as one in the original suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Execution Court retains jurisdiction to extend time for deposit and rescind contracts under Section 28, and applications must be treated as part of the original suit.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1 dated 11.01.2017
1 High Court passed in Civil Revision No.8105 of 2016, whereby the revision preferred by the appellant(s) against the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal2 dated 03.11.2016 was dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. A suit for specific performance was instituted by the respondents against the appellant(s) (which would include their predecessor in interest) for enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 18.05.2005. In the plaint, inter alia, it was alleged that the appellant(s) had agreed to sell the property in dispute at a total consideration of Rs.18 lacs, out of which Rs.9.77 lacs was paid in advance, yet, despite service of notice requesting execution of sale deed, the appellants failed to execute the same.
4. The trial court (i.e., the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal), vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011, decreed the suit in part whereunder the appellant(s) were directed to refund the earnest money with interest, etc. 2 Execution Court
5. Aggrieved by rejection of the prayer for specific performance of the agreement, the respondents went in appeal. The appellate court (i.e., the Court of Additional District Judge, Kaithal (for short ADJ)) allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.2012 and accepted the prayer for specific performance of the agreement. While doing so, it directed the appellants herein to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondents herein on payment of balance sale consideration within a period of two months from the date of the decree, failing which, liberty was given to the decree holder(s) to get the sale deed executed through Court.
6. On 20.03.2012, the respondents (i.e. decree holders) filed an execution application before the Court of first instance (i.e., the trial court) praying thus:
“It is therefore, prayed that the sale deed as per the decree passed in Civil Appeal No.53 of 2011 may kindly be got executed and registered in favour of the decree holders by the appointment of the local commissioner and possession may kindly be got delivered to the decree holder and the balance sale price may kindly be got deposited in the Court for payment to the J.Ds and cost for the suit and the appeal and this execution may also be got recovered from the J.Ds.”
7. While the application for execution of the decree was pending, the appellant(s) (i.e., the judgment debtor(s)) challenged the appellate court decree by filing Second Appeal No.3730 of 2012 before the High Court, which came to be dismissed on 07.11.2013.
8. Upon dismissal of the Second Appeal, the respondents (i.e., decree-holders) filed an application before the Execution Court on 24.03.2014 seeking permission to deposit the balance consideration in Court. Opposing this prayer of the decree holder, in the execution proceeding itself, the appellant(s) (i.e. the judgment-debtors) submitted an application under Section 283 of the Specific Relief Act, 3 28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed.— (1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application 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. (2) Where a contract is rescinded under sub-section (1), the court—
(a) shall direct the purchaser or the lessee, if he has obtained possession of the property under t
