LexSARDAR MOHAR SINGH THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MANJIT SINGH versus MANGILAL @ MANGTYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'1 , • ~ ... \ ' ,. •, ~ SARDAR MOHAR SINGH THROUGH POWER OF A ATTORNEY HOLDER, MANJIT SINGH v. MANGILAL @ MANGTYA JANUARY 15, 1997 B [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, J.J.] Specific Relief Act, 1963 : Section 28--Court's discretion to extend time for compliance of Conditional decree as mentioned in the decree for specific c pe1f onnance-/t is not one of condonation of delay-It is one of extension of time-Executing Cowt as well as High Court had exercised the discretion and extended the time to comply with the conditional decree-No inteiference called for. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) D No. 2283 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.96 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in C.R. No. 394 of 1996. R. S. Suri for the Petitioner. E The following Order of the Court was delivered : Delay condoned. This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the learned F Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, made on October 4, 1996 in Civil Revision No. 394/96. The petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondent for sale of agricultural lands in Khasra Nos. 52, 61, 73, 74, 79, admeasuring 3-533, 0-166, 1-437, 0.384, 0.202 hectares 'and also an ·agreement to sell dated July 7, 1977 in respect of lands situated in Village Khode, for a consideration of Rs. 25,000.· The respondent failed to perform G his part of the contract and, therefore, the petitioner filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 9A/78 in the Court of ADJ, Mandleshwar. The trial Court granted a decree for specific performance on November 18, 1987 directing <""'"1 the respondent to refund the earnest money of Rs.15,000 and also damages quantified in the sum of Rs 2,000, as agreed in the contract, within a period H 297 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 1 S.C.R. A of three months and in default to execute the sale deed. The respondent filed applications rescind the. decree in execution and he sought extension of time for compliance. The executing Court by order dated March 15, 1996 allowed both the applications of the respondent and directed him to deposit the amount within three days from that date. In revision, the High B Court, while upholding that order, has, in addition to the direction of the lower court, directed the respondent to deposit a further sum of Rs. 16,000 to compensate the petitioner for loss of enjoyment of money. Thus, this special leave petition. Shri RS. Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in C view of the inordinate delay of 7-1/2 years in making the application and in view of the finding given by the executing Court that no proper explana- tion was given by the respondent for the delay, the execution Court as well as the High Court committed an error of law directing extension of time there being no proper explanation. The High Court also was wrong in its D conclusion that the decree can be treated to be a priliminary decree and, therefore, the direction can be granted in the final decree. It is also contended that the Court has no power to extend time. We do not find . force in any of these contentions. It is seen that sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, the 'Act') gives right to the judgment- debtor to file an application to rescind the contract. It reads as E under: F G "Where in any suit a decree for specific pe~formance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and purchaser or lessee does not, within the periud allowed by the decree or such further period as the Court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the Court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the Court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require." From the language of sub-section (1) of Section 28, it could be seen that the Court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant of the decree . for specific performance nor it'becomes jimctus officio. The very fact that H Section 28 itself gives power to grant order of rescission of the decree f SARDAR MOHAR SINGH v. MANGILAL 299 would indicate that till the sale deed is executed in execution of the decree, A the trial Court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.