Summary
An ex parte decree of October 2013 for specific performance of an agreement to sell land required the purchaser to deposit the balance of Rs. 15 lakhs within two weeks; he did nothing for 853 days and then sought extension under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, while the vendor's heir applied to rescind the agreement. The trial court condoned the delay and the Telangana High Court dismissed the revisions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals: following V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm, extension of time to pay under a specific performance decree is not granted as a matter of course and equity does not favour a decree holder who neither paid nor applied within a reasonable time; Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar is distinguishable. The agreement was rescinded and the advance of Rs. 8 lakhs ordered refunded with 12 per cent interest.
Issues
- Whether a decree holder who failed for 853 days to deposit the balance sale consideration directed by a decree for specific performance, and offered only a plea of illness, was entitled to extension of time under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, or whether the agreement should be rescinded at the judgment debtor's instance.
Provisions considered
- Section 28, Specific Relief Act, 1963The court retains control over a decree for specific performance and may either extend time for payment or rescind the contract on the vendor's application; the power is discretionary and must be exercised as justice requires, and here the unexplained delay of 853 days called for rescission rather than extension. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Enlargement of time fixed by the court is not to be granted for the mere asking; the plaintiff's explanation of hospitalisation for about two months and confinement at home thereafter could hardly justify a delay of over two years in even applying for extension. (¶¶ 5, 8)
Held
- Provisions for specific performance are stringent and equitable considerations govern; where the decree holder gives no sufficient explanation for not paying the balance consideration under the decree or applying within a reasonable time for extension, equity demands that discretion not be exercised in his favour, as held in V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm; a plaintiff with the money could have had the sale deed executed through the court process after deposit. (¶¶ 5, 6, 8)
- Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar, where nearly the whole price had been paid and the balance was delayed by only five days, illustrates the discretionary nature of Section 28 but does not support condoning a delay of 853 days; to strike a balance the advance of Rs. 8,00,000 is to be returned with 12 per cent interest from 09.05.2012 within six weeks, failing which at 18 per cent. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; Telangana High Court common judgment dated 17.01.2022 in CRP Nos. 2374 and 2304 of 2019 and the trial court's order dated 29.06.2019 set aside; I.A. No. 732 of 2016 seeking extension of time dismissed, I.A. No. 914 of 2017 allowed and the agreement to sell dated 09.05.2012 rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act; appellant to refund Rs. 8,00,000 with 12 per cent interest from 09.05.2012 within six weeks, failing which interest at 18 per cent.