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rescind the contract – Application was rejected – Sale deeds were executed – Execution petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn as possession was handed over to plaintiff:
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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan,. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.