Summary
Execution of the specific-performance decree could not be defeated by treating the balance consideration deposited shortly after appellate affirmation as inexcusably late. The trial decree merged into the appellate decree notwithstanding the absence of a stay. The purchaser acted bona fide, and the court retained equitable powers over compliance. The High Court exceeded revision jurisdiction by substituting a refund for specific performance; the executing court’s rejection of objections was restored.
Issues
- Whether appellate merger and the purchaser’s subsequent deposit preserved execution of the specific-performance decree.
- Whether the High Court could substitute a refund in revision from execution proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Section 28, Specific Relief Act, 1963The court retained jurisdiction after the decree, including discretion to extend time or rescind upon consideration of conduct and surrounding circumstances. (¶ 18–21)
Held
- Upon appellate determination the trial decree merged into the appellate decree, whether affirmed, modified or reversed. Absence of a stay during the appeal did not prevent that merger or defeat execution of the appellate decree. (¶ 13–17)
- A specific-performance decree does not make the court functus officio. Section 28 preserves control over performance and rescission, with discretion informed by the parties’ conduct. (¶ 18–20)
- Unlike the unexplained prolonged default in the precedent relied upon, the purchaser had paid most of the consideration and deposited the balance barely a month after appellate affirmation. His bona fides and equities supported execution. (¶ 21)
- In revision arising from execution the High Court could not modify the operative specific-performance decree into a refund direction. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. High Court revision judgment set aside; executing court’s order rejecting the judgment debtor’s objections restored.