BHUPINDER KUMAR versus ANGREJ SINGH

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 28-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 978 
A 
BHUPINDER KUMAR 
-.>-. 
V. 
ANGREJ SINGH 
{Civil Appeal No. 5846 of 2009) 
B 
AUGUST 28, 2009 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
}... 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.28- Failure of <jecree hol<;J(3r 
-I 
to perform the conditions mentioned in the deqr~e of specific 
c performance - Power of court to ext~n<t tim~ in his favour to 
perform the conditions or order rf)sci~sion Qf agreement -
Held: s.28 gives power to the Court to extend the time to pay 
the amount of perform the conditions of decree for specific 
performance or order rescission of the agreement - In 
. 
~ 
~ 
I 
D deciding application under s.28(1) Court has to see all 
attending circumstances including conduct of the parties - On 
~ 
facts, there was neither any material to show that decree 
;,.. 
. holder had required money nor he tendered or deposited th~ 
same as per the terms of the decree - Courts below were 
E 
correct in holding that there was no just and reasonable cause 
to extend the time for depositing the balance consideration. 
The Civil Court decreed the suit for !!pecific 
• 
performance of agreement to sale filed by the appellant .. 
~ 
The Court directed respondent to get the sale deed 
..... 
F 
registered within three months failing which appellant 
would be at liberty to get the sale deed executed and 
registered through Court. The appellant did not deposit 
the balance sale price within three months (Ind 
respondent did not execute the sale deed, Appellant 
G moved an application for extension of time to deposit the 
balance of sale consideration in the court, The Civil 
(: 
Judge dismissed the application and held that the $ale 
agreement stood rescinded as cQntempJated under s.28 
of Specific Relief Act. The first appellate court and High 
H 
978 
BHUPINDER KUMAR v. ANGREJ SINGH 
979 
Court upheld the order of Civil Court. Hence the appeal. 
A 
--'--
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal were whether the Court has power to 
extend the time in favour of a decree holder to pay the 
balance amount or perform conditions as mentioned in 
B 
the decree for specific performance and whether the 
appellant had shown sufficient and reasonable ground 
for extension of time. 
~ 
"! 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. As per the Limitation Act, the decree holder 
is permitted to execute the decree within a period of 
twelve years. No doubt, in the instant case , it is asserted 
by th!i! appellant ~hat he sent a legal notice to the 
respondent for compliance of the decree. However, the 
D 
/A 
fact remains that the appellant filed an application in the 
-)' 
Executing Court for extension of time for depositing the 
balance amount in the Court as directed in the decree. 
) 
The Executing Court as well as the High Court proceeded 
on the assumption that since the plaintiff-decree holder 
E 
was not able to deposit the amount as directed in the 
decree dated 13.10.1998, the said decree cannot be 
executed since it has no force in the eye of law. [Para 9] 
.... 
(984-8-D] 
;. 
Kumar Dhirendra Mullick and Others v. Tivoli Park F 
Apartments (P) Ltd. (2005) 9 SCC 262, relied on. 
K. Ka/pana Saraswathi v.P. S.S. Samasundaram Chettiar 
(1980) 1 sec 630, referred to. 
2. Section 28 of Specific Relief Act gives power to the G 
:) 
court either to extend the time for compliance of the 
decree or grant order of rescission of the agreement. 
When the court passes the decree for specific 
performance, the contract between the parties is not 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) $.C.R. 
A extinguished. Sub-Section 1 of Section 28 makes it clear 
that the court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant 
of decree for specific performance nor it becomes 
functus officio. [Para 11] (987-B-C] 
8 
3. The order of the Executing Court and the High 
Court cannot be faulted with. The suit for specific 
performance -is il'.I the nature of discretionary remedy and 
on equity, the appellant was not entitled to get the decree 
executed since he failed to place relevant materials about 
C his inability to tender or deposit the decreed amount. The 
suit was decreed on 13.10.1998 stipulating that the 
balance sale consideration was to be paid by 13.01.1999. 
In fact, only after the judgment debtor filed an application 
for rescission of agreement on 28.05.2001, the 
application for extension of time was moved on 
D 13.08.2001. There is neither any material to show that the 
appellant 

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