Summary
The Court upheld extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration under a compromise decree for specific performance. The decree court retained control and could extend time to prevent manifest injustice. The purchaser had deposited the balance about five days late with permission, and the vendor then executed the sale deed. The High Court’s cancellation was set aside.
Issues
- Whether time for payment under a compromise specific-performance decree could be extended.
- Whether the trial court’s discretionary extension and rejection of rescission should have been disturbed.
Provisions considered
- Section 28(1), Specific Relief Act, 1963Recognised continuing decree-court control, discretion to extend payment time and power to address rescission within the same suit. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Held
- A specific-performance suit does not end for all purposes with the decree. Section 28 preserves the court’s control to grant appropriate further time or consider rescission in the same proceedings, according to justice. A consent decree does not remove that power. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Extension is not available merely on request. The Court applied Periyakkal’s principle that enlargement under a compromise decree may be appropriate to prevent manifest injustice and relieve against forfeiture without rewriting the parties’ contract. (¶ 11)
- Here the purchaser sought and obtained permission to deposit the balance about five days after the deadline, made the deposit immediately, and received the executed sale deed the following day. The trial court gave cogent reasons for extending time; the vendor’s much later rescission attempt did not justify the High Court’s cancellation. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court order was set aside and the trial court’s 11 January 2011 deposit-permission order restored. No costs.