LexV.S. PALANICHAMY CHEITIAR FIRM versus C. ALAGAPPAN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~. V.S. PALANICHAMY CHEITIAR FIRM A ~ v. ~ C. ALAGAPPAN AND ANR. ,..,. FEBRUARY 3, 1999 (S. SAGHIR AHMED AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B , Specific Relief Act-Sections 16, 28-Application for extension of time ,... Suit for specific perfonnance-Decree holder failing to deposit purchase money within the time limit fixed by court-Execution dismissed for want of c deposit of balance amount-Application for extension filed after five years of decree-Be/ ore the High Court in revision-Remanded to execution Court-Whether maintainable-Held, executing Court cmt entertain the ap- plication for extension-Further held, vendor can seek recission as a defence. Specific Relief Act-Section 28-Suit for specific relief decreed-Decree D holder Jailing to deposit balance consideration-No explanation for the delar-ff eld, discretion be not exercised in favour of decree holder-No -· exte11Sion of time be granted. Limitation Act-Article 54-Suit for specific perf onnance filed within E limitation-Suit decreed-Balance consideration not deposited-Held, merely because a suit is filed within. limitation it does not absolve the decree holder from showing his readiness and willingness for perf onning the contract. The Respondents, decree holders in a suit for specific performance filed execution application after five years of obtaining the decree and after F 3 years of dismissal of Appeal. The execution applications were dismissed on the ground that the Respondent had not deposited the balance amount in specified time in one case and did not deposit and amount in the other. While the Revision Petitions were pending in High Court the Respondents preferred separate applications under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act G seeking extension of time to deposit the amount. The appellant opposed the same contending that the application is not maintainable in the High Court and no such application was filed in the Trial Court. The High . ..,_ . Court remanded the matter directing the executing Court to dispose of the .,,., applications and also held that the Trial Court has got power to extend the time. H 349 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R. A On appeal before this Court, the Respondent contended that this B Court should not interfere in the order of the High Court inasmuch as matter has only been remanded to the executing c'ourt to dispose of the applications for extension of time to deposit the balance amount of con- sideration in terms of the decree in accordance with law. Allowing the Appeals, the Court ~ HELD : 1. When the Trial Court and the executing Court are same, -. executing Court can enter iain the application for extension of time though the application is to be treated as one filed in the main Suit. On the same C analogy, the vendor judgment- holder can also seek rescission of the D contract of sale or take up the plea in defence to bar the execution of decree. (353-E-FJ Sardar Mohar Singh through Power of Attorney Holder, Manjit Singh v. Mangilal Alias Mangtya, (1997) 2 M.L.J. 88 SC= (1997) 9 SCC 217, cited. K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar, AIR (1980) SC 512; KS. Vidyanadam & Ors. v. Vairavan, [1997) 3 SCC 1; Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, [1993) 2 SCC 519; N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) by LRs. v. Dr .. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 115 and Ramankutty Guptan v. E Avara, [1994) 2 sec 642, referred to. 2. Merely because a suit is filed within the prescribed period oflimita- tion it does not absolve the vendee-plaintilT from showing as to whether he was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and if there was non-performance was that on account of any obstacle put by the vendor or F otherwise. Provisions to grant specific performance of an agreement are quite stringent. Equitable considerations come into play. Court has to see all the attendant circumstances including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale. (359-D-E] 3. It is not the case of the Respondent-decree holder that on account G of any fault on the part of the vendor-judgment- debtor, the amount could not be deposited as per the decree. That being the position, if now time is granted, that would be going beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the suit for specific performance of the agreement though this provision may not be strictly applicable. It is nevertheless an important H circumstance to be conside
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.