Apex Court clarifies discretionary power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, allowing courts to rescind or extend time for compliance even after stipulated deadlines.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the jurisdiction of courts under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to extend time for compliance with decrees for specific performance of contracts, emphasizing equitable considerations. The decision came in the case of Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari, where the appellant sought specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, overturned the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the 7th Additional District Judge, Satna, which had dismissed the execution application of the appellant due to delay in depositing the balance sale consideration. The apex court highlighted that neither automatic rescission nor automatic extension should occur solely based on compliance or non-compliance within the stipulated time frame.
The court underscored the discretionary power vested under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, which allows courts to balance equities and consider the conduct of parties before deciding on rescission or extension of time. The judgment emphasized that the decree for specific performance is akin to a preliminary decree, thereby retaining the court's jurisdiction until the contract is fully executed.
The case originated from a suit filed by Anand Narayan Shukla for specific performance of a sale agreement dated November 14, 2011. The trial court decreed in favor of Shukla, directing him to pay the balance sale consideration within a month. However, the payment was delayed due to various procedural lapses and the pendency of an appeal filed by the respondent, Jagat Dhari, which was eventually dismissed.
The Supreme Court criticized the lower courts for adopting a pedantic approach and not considering the possibility of extending the time for deposit. It directed the Execution Court to reconsider the execution application, taking into account the principles of equity and the conduct of the parties. The court also suggested imposing compensatory terms on the decree holder to offset any inconvenience caused to the judgment debtor due to the delay.
Legal experts view this judgment as a significant clarification on the powers of courts in specific performance suits, reinforcing the principle that equitable relief should be guided by justice and fairness, rather than rigid adherence to procedural timelines.
Bottom Line:
The Court retains jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to rescind or extend the time for compliance with a decree for specific performance even after the stipulated time has expired. The discretionary power must be exercised equitably, considering all attending circumstances, conduct of the parties, and balancing equities.
Statutory provision(s): Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Order XX Rule 12A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
This judgment serves as an important precedent for future cases involving specific performance of contracts, ensuring that the courts exercise their discretionary powers judiciously to uphold equitable principles.
Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2894778
