Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-015069-015069 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 35407/2022 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Precedent Value | Clarifies scope for extending decree timelines under Section 28; reaffirms doctrine of merger principles |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents; overrules the High Court’s strict “two-month only” approach |
| Type of Law | Civil Law (Specific Relief Act, 1963; property law) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that failure to deposit balance sale consideration within the decree’s fixed period does not automatically rescind the contract; under Section 28(1) the same court may extend time on terms, and a hyper-technical denial of execution petitions beyond the fixed period must be avoided. Further, once an appellate decree is final, the trial-court decree merges into it, leaving only one operative decree for execution. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Parties entered an “agreement to sell” land in Panchkula in December 2004 with earnest money paid. Trial Court decreed specific performance in May 2011 and granted a two-month period for balance payment and execution of sale deed. On second appeal, that decree was restored in February 2016. Execution petition was filed on the 87th day; deposits were made late and objections followed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in India seeking to execute specific performance decrees |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and the Supreme Court when assessing applications under Section 28 for extension of time |
| Overrules | High Court of Punjab & Haryana’s impugned order in CR No. 979 of 2018 dismissing the execution petition |
| Distinguishes | The High Court’s factual reliance on Surinder Pal Soni’s and Raman Kutty’s cases was set aside; Supreme Court clarifies those precedents remain valid |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Non-payment of balance sale consideration within the decree’s fixed period does not ipso facto rescind the contract.
- Section 28 permits the same court to extend the time for performance on appropriate terms, even post-decree.
- Courts must avoid hyper-technical rejections of execution petitions filed beyond decree timelines when readiness and willingness are shown.
- Final appellate decrees merge prior trial-court decrees; only one operative decree remains for execution.
- Execution petitions filed beyond 60 days can proceed if balance payment is eventually made and conduct shows no abandonment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Interpretation of Section 28(1) SR Act: the court may extend the period to pay purchase money on terms, and no separate suit lies.
- Reliance on V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm to confirm executing court’s power to grant extensions in the same suit.
- Invocation of Ramankutty Gupta v. Avara to caution against hyper-technical denial of execution.
- Application of Ram Lal v. Jarnail Singh: non-payment within time ≠ abandonment; readiness and willingness are the real test.
- Doctrine of merger analysis (Balbir Singh; Kunhayammed; Surinder Pal Soni): only the final appellate decree subsists.
- Conclusion: Execution petition filed on 87th day maintainable; High Court’s order set aside; executing court restored.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Although the execution petition was filed after 60 days, readiness and willingness to perform existed.
- Failure to deposit balance within two months does not amount to rescission of the contract.
- Section 28 empowers the court to condone delay and extend time on terms.
- The High Court’s strict approach is hyper-technical and contrary to precedent.
Respondent
- Execution filed on the 87th day beyond the two-month period ordered by the Trial Court.
- Balance sale consideration was not paid within the decree timeline, showing lack of readiness/willingness.
- No application was made to extend time before the executing or appellate court.
- The decree became inexecutable once the two months elapsed without payment.
Factual Background
Parties entered into an agreement to sell two biswas of land in Kalka, District Panchkula, on 11 December 2004, with Rs. 1 lakh earnest money. The Trial Court granted specific performance on 14 May 2011, directing balance payment of Rs. 8.05 lakh within two months. On second appeal, the decree was upheld on 8 February 2016. The decree-holder filed an execution petition on 4 July 2016 (87 days later), deposited amounts in August and December 2016, and faced objections which led to the High Court dismissing execution.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 28, Specific Relief Act, 1963: empowers the court to rescind contract if balance money is not paid within the decree period, but allows extension of time on terms; sub-sections address restitution and reliefs upon payment.
- No other statutes or constitutional provisions were interpreted.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms the principle that execution delays can be condoned under Section 28.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Overrules the High Court’s rigid timeline approach, distinguishing its factual application of Surinder Pal Soni and Raman Kutty.