Case Note & Summary
This Special Leave Petition arose from the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated June 19, 1996 in I.A. No.3 in RFA No.225/84, concerning a suit for specific performance. The dispute centered on the enforcement of a conditional decree requiring the respondent to deposit a further sum of Rs.1,80,000 within an extended period. The High Court had agreed with the respondent's suggestion to pay that amount and had extended three months' time from April 21, 1994 for deposit. A Special Leave Petition filed against that order in the Supreme Court was dismissed on September 23, 1994. Thereafter, the respondent deposited the amount on January 17, 1995, which was within three months from the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking rescission of the decree on the ground that the respondent had committed default by not depositing within the original time. The respondent filed an application for extension of time. The High Court dismissed the application for rescission and allowed the application for extension of time. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the High Court's order by way of the present Special Leave Petition. The petitioner's counsel argued that after the expiry of the time prescribed by the court, the petitioner had a right to seek rescission of the decree for specific performance for non-compliance, and the court had no power to enlarge the time. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It held that Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 gives the court power to enlarge the time for complying with its orders from time to time. The Court noted that the amount came to be deposited within three months from the date of dismissal of the earlier Special Leave Petition, which was within a reasonable extended period. Therefore, the High Court had correctly exercised its discretion in allowing extension and dismissing the rescission application. The Supreme Court found no force in the contention that the High Court lacked power to extend time. The deposit of Rs.1,80,000 was made on January 17, 1995, which was within three months of the dismissal of the earlier SLP on September 23, 1994, satisfying the High Court's conditional order as extended. Thus, the default alleged by the petitioner was not such as to warrant rescission of the decree under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Rescission of Decree - Section 28, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Court's power to rescind decree for non-compliance with conditional decree - In a suit for specific performance, the High Court extended time for deposit of Rs.1,80,000; petitioner sought rescission on alleged default; Supreme Court held that because the amount was deposited within three months from dismissal of SLP, the High Court correctly dismissed rescission application - Held that rescission under Section 28 is discretionary and not automatic upon expiry of time when deposit made within reasonable extended period (Para 1). B) Civil Procedure - Extension of Time - Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Court has power to enlarge time for compliance with its orders even after expiry - The Supreme Court rejected petitioner's contention that court had no power to enlarge time after expiry; Section 148 CPC empowers court from time to time; High Court correctly exercised discretion - Held that Section 148 CPC validates extension of time for deposit (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to extend time for deposit of the balance consideration amount in a suit for specific performance after expiry of the original period, and whether the petitioner was entitled to rescission of the decree under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for the respondent's alleged default.
Final Decision
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that Section 148 CPC gives power to the court to enlarge time for compliance with its orders; the High Court correctly exercised discretion because the amount was deposited within three months from dismissal of earlier SLP.
Law Points
- Section 148 CPC empowers court to enlarge time for compliance with its orders from time to time
- Court has discretion to extend time for deposit in conditional decree for specific performance
- Rescission under Section 28 Specific Relief Act not automatic on expiry of time if amount deposited within reasonable period
- High Court correctly exercised discretion when deposit made within three months of dismissal of SLP
