Court rules application for rescission of contract barred by limitation, emphasizing implicit extension of time for execution of sale deed.
In a significant judgment delivered on March 19, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice P. Krishna Kumar, dismissed an original petition filed by Puthuparambil Raju, the defendant in a long-standing suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property. The court upheld the dismissal of Raju's application for rescission of the contract, filed on the grounds of non-compliance with the time stipulation in the original decree and lack of explicit extension of time by the court.
The dispute dates back to a decree passed on November 21, 2001, which directed Raju to execute a sale deed upon the respondent, Kachirayil Joseph, depositing a balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,000 within one month. Joseph failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time but later deposited it belatedly, leading to the execution of the sale deed through the court. Raju's subsequent application for rescission of the contract was dismissed by the Sub Judge, citing that it was barred by the limitation period.
The High Court, in its judgment, clarified that the limitation period for filing an application under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. It emphasized that the right to apply for rescission accrues upon the expiry of the time stipulated in the decree for deposit of the balance consideration, and not upon receipt of notice in subsequent proceedings.
The court highlighted that the Munsiff Court had issued notice to Raju regarding the execution application filed by Joseph, and Raju had duly appeared in court. Therefore, the plea that the delay in filing the rescission application was due to lack of notice was deemed factually untenable.
Moreover, the court noted that Joseph had deposited the balance sale consideration within a year and filed an application for execution of the sale deed, which was allowed by the court after notifying Raju. This action, the court stated, implicitly extended the time for deposit, even though there was no explicit order to that effect.
Referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Ishwar v. Bhim Singh (AIR 2024 SC 4232), the High Court affirmed that an Execution Court has the power to extend time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, even after the receipt of the amount that was due for earlier deposit. The court concluded that the absence of an express order extending time does not render the decree inexecutable once the sale deed has been executed through the court's process.
Justice P. Krishna Kumar's judgment underscores the principle that courts can implicitly extend deadlines when they permit the execution of decrees after delays, provided the circumstances justify such actions. This ruling reinforces the understanding of how limitation periods and the execution of decrees interact under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Bottom Line:
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Application for rescission of contract - Limitation period for filing application under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues - Court implicitly extending time for deposit of balance sale consideration does not render decree inexecutable.
Statutory provision(s): Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 28, Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137
Puthuparambil Raju v. Kachirayil Joseph, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2872053
