Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 09.05.2012, where the plaintiff had paid an advance of Rs. 8,00,000 against a total sale consideration of Rs. 23,00,000. The trial court passed an ex-parte judgment and decree on 12.10.2013, directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of Rs. 15,00,000 within two weeks. The plaintiff failed to comply, and after 853 days, filed an application under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act seeking extension of time, citing illness as the reason for delay. The defendant, as legal heir of the original defendant who died in 2015, opposed this and filed an application under Section 28 to rescind the agreement. The trial court allowed the plaintiff's application, directing deposit with 18% interest from the decree date, and dismissed the defendant's rescission application. The High Court upheld this in revision petitions. The core legal issues were whether the courts erred in extending time despite the delay and whether rescission was warranted. The appellant argued that the delay was unexplained and willful, and that equity favored rescission due to increased land value. The respondent contended that the delay was sufficiently explained and that discretionary orders should not be interfered with. The court analyzed the discretionary powers under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, referencing precedents on extension of time and sufficient cause. It held that the trial court's exercise of discretion was not arbitrary, as the plaintiff's illness provided a reasonable explanation, and the imposition of interest compensated for the delay. The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the lower courts' orders.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Extension of Time - Discretionary Power Under Section 148 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 148 - The appellant challenged the extension of time granted to the plaintiff to deposit balance sale consideration after 853 days delay - The court held that trial courts have discretionary power to extend time under Section 148 CPC, and such discretion should not be interfered with unless exercised arbitrarily - The plaintiff's explanation of illness was accepted as sufficient cause (Paras 1-5). B) Specific Relief - Specific Performance - Extension of Time Under Section 28 Specific Relief Act - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 28 - The appellant sought rescission of agreement to sell under Section 28 due to plaintiff's failure to deposit balance consideration within stipulated time - The court upheld the trial court's decision to extend time and dismiss rescission application, noting that equity favored allowing deposit with interest to compensate for delay - Held that courts can extend time under Section 28 if sufficient cause is shown (Paras 2-5). C) Civil Procedure - Delay Condonation - Sufficient Cause for Delay - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 148 - The plaintiff filed application after 853 days delay citing illness from jaundice and other diseases - The court found the explanation sufficient and upheld condonation, emphasizing that discretionary orders should not be lightly interfered with - The trial court directed deposit with 18% interest from decree date to balance equities (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court and High Court erred in allowing an application under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 Specific Relief Act to extend time for deposit of balance sale consideration despite a delay of 853 days, and whether the agreement should be rescinded under Section 28 Specific Relief Act
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the trial court and High Court orders allowing extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration with 18% interest from decree date and dismissing rescission application
Law Points
- Courts have discretionary power under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 Specific Relief Act to extend time for deposit of sale consideration
- delay must be explained with sufficient cause
- equity considerations are relevant in specific performance cases
- ex-parte decrees require compliance with court directions
