The judgment emphasized the need for strict compliance with the conditions stipulated in a provision that nullifies a decree, and clarified that the failure to seek rescission of a contract does not automatically result in an extension of time for the execution of the decree.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred against Judgment and Order in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2807/2012 and 2810/2012 passed by High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad on 1st September, 2014. Short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is : whether failure of the decree-holder in a suit for specific performance to make the requisite deposit within the specified time, will permit the decree-holder to execute the decree in absence of extension of time?

2. The facts are not in dispute. A decree for specific performance was granted in favour of the Plaintiffs-Respondents on 25th September, 2008 as follows:

In the result, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with costs directing the Defendant No. 1 to execute and register sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property within two months from the date of this order after receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,50,000/- at 6% per annum from 27.09.2002 i.e. from the date of agreement of sale. It is further decree that in case Defendant No. 1 refuse to receive the balance sale consideration with interest the Plaintiff is at liberty to deposit the said amount into the Court and to obtain regular sale deed through Court.

3. The Respondents claimed to have a cheque on 4th December, 2008 for the amount in question but the same was returned, as not accepted by the judgment-debtor, Appellant herein. Thereafter the decree-holders applied for execution sometime in the year 2010, after making the deposit of the decretal amount on 7th October, 2010.

4. The judgment-debtor filed an application before the Executing Court objecting to the execution of the decree as the amount in question was not deposited by the decree-holders within the stipulated time, rendering the decree inexecutable in the absence of extension of time.

5. The Executing Court upheld the objection holding:

There is no documentary proof to show that he seek enlargement of time for paying the purchase money Under Section 28(1) of the Act of 1963, without seeking extension of time the Respondent herein filed this EP on 07.10.2010 i.e., after a period two years two months. As per the decision reported in 2010 (5) ALD 807 the execution petition for obtaining specific performance is not maintainable.

6. On a revision having been filed by the decree-holders, the High Court reversed the order of the Executing Court and held:

The Executing Court was not clear, both as regards the facts and as to law. On facts, it did not take into account, the real purport of the decree. The relevant portion has already been extracted. The stipulated of two months was for the 1st Respondent to execute the decree. That stipulation, no doubt, is coupled with the right to receive the balance of consideration. There was nothing on record to indicate that he ever made any effort to collect or demand the balance of consideration from the Petitioner, within that time. The plea of the Petitioner that when he offered the amount, the Respondents refused to receive; remained un-rebutted. The 1st Respondent did not file any rejoinder to the counter-affidavit. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, the Executing Court did not record any evidence of the parties. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court, in this behalf, cannot be sustained. When valuable rights accrued to a party, on account of the suit for specific performance being decreed, they cannot be taken away, on the basis of such an untenable finding.

On the aspect of law, the Executing Court proceeded as though Section 28 of the Act gets attracted, though it did not mention in so many words. Firstly, the 1st Respondent himself did not invoke that provision. Secondly, the provision gets attracted only where, a) the Court, which passed the decree, directs the decree-holder to pay the purchaser money (balance of consideration) within a period, stipulated by it, and b) the decree-holder failed to comply with the direction. It is