BALBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC. versus BALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 17-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 781 : 2025 INSC 81
Balbir Singh & Anr. Etc. 
v. 
Baldev Singh (D) Through His LRs. & Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 563-566 of 2025)
17 January 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The two questions of law fall for consideration in the instant appeal; 
First, the effect of merger of the trial court’s decree with that of the 
decree passed by High Court in second appeals; Secondly, whether 
the defendants/judgment debtors could have prayed for rescission 
of contract on the ground that the plaintiffs/decree holders had failed 
to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time 
period of 20 days as prescribed in the original decree.
Headnotes†
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.28 – Specific Performance of 
the agreement – The suit of plaintiff was decreed in his 
favour for possession by way of specific performance of the 
agreement – The plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance 
sale consideration in the Court within the period of twenty 
days and defendants were directed to execute the sale deeds 
in favour of plaintiff – The First Appellate Court set aside the 
judgment of the trial Court – However, in the second appeal 
before the High Court, the original decree passed by the trial 
Court was restored – SLPs were filed – Meanwhile, original 
Plaintiff preferred execution petition – Plaintiff prayed for 
permission to deposit the balance sale consideration and 
same was granted – Plaintiff deposited the balance sale 
consideration – SLPs were dismissed and the judgment of 
the High Court in second appeal was affirmed – Thereafter, 
defendant/judgment debtors filed an application u/s.28 of 
the Act to rescind the contract – Application was rejected – 
Sale deeds were executed – Execution petition came to be 
dismissed as withdrawn as possession was handed over to 
plaintiff:
* Author
782
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: The decision of the High Court in the second appeals 
filed by the plaintiffs (decree holders) there was a merger of the 
judgment of the trial court with the decision which was rendered 
by the High Court in the second appeals – Consequent upon the 
passing of the decree of the second appellate court, the decree 
of the trial court merges with that of the same – Once the High 
Court allowed the second appeals in favour of the plaintiffs, there 
was evidently a merger of the judgment of the trial court with the 
decision of the High Court – Once the High Court as an appellate 
court in second appeal renders its judgment it is a decree of the 
second appellate court which becomes executable hence, the 
entitlement of the decree holder to execute the decree of the 
second appellate court cannot be defeated – As far as failure on 
the part of the decree-holder (plaintiff) to deposit the balance sale 
consideration within 20 days from the date of the judgment passed 
by the High Court in second appeal is concerned, the High Court 
while allowing the second appeal filed by the original plaintiff had 
not issued any specific direction as regards the deposit of the 
balance sale consideration within a particular period of time – It is 
incorrect on the part of the appellant herein to say that since the 
trial court had directed that the balance sale consideration shall be 
deposited within 20 days, the same direction would be applicable 
even after the judgment of the High Court in second appeal – The 
High Court committed no error in passing the impugned judgment. 
[Paras 27, 28, 34, 52]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.148 – Specific Relief Act, 
1963 – s.28 – Power of trial Court – Extension of time for 
payment of money:
Held: It is well settled position of law that when time for payment 
of money is extended, it does not mean a modification of the 
decree – The trial court has power to extend the time, and the 
expression “such further period as the court may allow” would mean 
the court which had passed the decree, or, where the application 
under Section 28 of the Act of 1963, is filed. [Para 44]
Case Law Cited
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 538 : (2000) 
6 SCC 359; Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad [2004] Supp. 4 SCR 
942 : (2004) 8 SCC 724; Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan (2019) 11 
SCC 419 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 787; Sardar Mohar Singh v. Mangilal 
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
783
Balbir Singh & Anr. Etc. v.  
Baldev Singh (D) Through His LRs. & Ors. Etc.
[1997] 1 SCR 297 : (1997) 9 SCC 217; Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.