The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing revision petitions that sought rescission of contracts for alleged non-compliance with a conditional decree's timeline. The Court emphasized that the power to extend time for compliance under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act lies within the discretion of the executing court, even if the decree prescribes specific deadlines.

Background Facts (Paras 1-4)

1. Four suits for specific performance were decreed by the trial court in 1994 with a 20-day compliance period for deposit of the balance sale consideration.
2. The appellate court overturned these decrees, prompting regular second appeals to the High Court, which restored the trial court's decisions in 2018.
3. Executing court allowed plaintiffs to deposit the balance amount in 2018, which the defendants challenged under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.

Proceedings in the High Court (Paras 5-14)

4. The High Court rejected the defendants’ plea, noting no specific timeline was set in its decree and no intentional default was established by the plaintiffs.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court (Paras 23-24)

• Does the merger of decrees impact the stipulated time for compliance?
• Can rescission of contract be justified under Section 28 for non-compliance with the original decree's timeline?

Legal Framework and Analysis (Paras 25-59)

• Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: Enables courts to extend the time for compliance or rescind contracts in certain circumstances.
• Doctrine of Merger: A decree of the appellate court supersedes and merges the decree of the trial court, affirming the High Court’s discretion in not prescribing a timeline.
• Judicial Precedents: The Court analyzed key cases (e.g., Prem Jeevan v. K.S. Venkata Raman) to differentiate facts and uphold the trial court's extension of time.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 28 – Rescission and extension of time in specific performance decrees.
2. Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908: Section 148 – Power to enlarge time.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court retains jurisdiction to manage specific performance decrees post-issuance. The discretion to extend timelines must consider the overall circumstances, including whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and promptly sought to comply post-restoration of the decree.

Subjects:

• Specific Performance of Contracts
• Judicial Discretion and Compliance Timelines

 #SpecificReliefAct #Section28 #DoctrineOfMerger #SpecificPerformance #LegalAnalysis