1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The present appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated May 18, 2005, filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the appellants (original defendants). According to the plaint, the appellants had agreed to sell a property for Rs. 18 lacs, receiving an advance payment of Rs. 9.77 lacs. Despite a notice requesting execution of the sale deed, the appellants allegedly failed to comply.
The Trial Court (Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal) initially decreed the suit in part on February 28, 2011, directing the appellants to refund the earnest money with interest, but rejecting the prayer for specific performance. Aggrieved by this, the respondents appealed to the Additional District Judge, Kaithal (appellate court), which, on January 12, 2012, allowed the appeal and granted specific performance. The appellate court directed the appellants to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration within two months, failing which the decree-holders were given liberty to get the sale deed executed through the court.
On March 20, 2012, the respondents, as decree-holders, filed an execution application before the Court of first instance (the original trial court), seeking execution and registration of the sale deed, delivery of possession, and deposit of the balance sale price. While this execution application was pending, the appellants (judgment-debtors) challenged the appellate court’s decree by filing Second Appeal No. 3730 of 2012 before the High Court, which was dismissed on November 7, 2013.
Following the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the decree-holders applied to the Execution Court on March 24, 2014, seeking permission to deposit the balance consideration. In opposition, the judgment-debtors filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (the 1963 Act), to rescind the contract, arguing that the decree-holders had failed to deposit the amount within the two-month period stipulated by the first appellate court.
The Execution Court, through an order dated November 3, 2016, rejected the judgment-debtors’ application for rescission and simultaneously permitted the decree-holders to deposit the balance consideration. This order was then challenged by the appellants (judgment-debtors) in a Civil Revision before the High Court, which dismissed the revision through the impugned order. The present appeal was filed against this High Court order.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The Supreme Court identified the following key legal questions for its consideration:
- Jurisdiction of the Execution Court: Whether the Execution Court possessed the jurisdiction to entertain applications for both rescission of the contract and extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration.
- Manner of Deciding Applications: If the Execution Court did have jurisdiction, whether these applications should have been decided as part of the original suit (i.e., on the original side), and if so, whether this procedural aspect alone warranted interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
3. Arguments of the Parties
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant(s) (Judgment-Debtors):
The appellants contended that the Execution Court lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the balance consideration, as the decree being executed was passed by the appellate court. They argued that the decree mandated payment within two months, and since no application for extension was made within this period, the Court had no power to grant such an extension. It was further submitted that the Execution Court gravely erred by extending the deposit time after four years from the appellate court’s decree, when the payment was due within two months.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents (Decree-Holders):
Conversely, the respondents argued that the Execution Court, being the court where the original suit was instituted, had the necessary jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit. They emphasized that the decree did not specify the mode of payment or a direction to deposit the balance consideration in court. Therefore, filing an execution application and seeking court permission to deposit was the only viable method, especially as the judgment-debtors were unwilling to abide by the decree. The respondents asserted their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract/decree. They highlighted that despite their timely execution application and offer of consideration, the judgment-debtors chose to pursue multiple appeals, including a Second Appeal and a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, both of which were dismissed. Given these circumstances, the respondents argued that the Execution Court was justified in extending time and rejecting the rescission application.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the scope of Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), to determine the jurisdiction of the Execution Court.
The Court noted that Section 28(1) uses the phrase “may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made” for applications to extend time or rescind the contract. To clarify what constitutes “the same suit” when an appellate court has passed the decree, the Supreme Court relied on its prior judgments.
It referred to the case of Ramankutty Guptan Vs. Avara, which addressed two pertinent questions:
- Whether an application under Section 28 of the 1963 Act is maintainable in the court of first instance when the decree has been passed by the appellate court.
- Whether the Execution Court, where the original suit was filed, can entertain such an application.
Drawing upon Section 37 of the CPC, which defines “the Court which passed a decree” to include the court of first instance even if the decree was passed in appellate jurisdiction, the Court in Ramankutty Guptan held that the decree of the appellate court is construed to be the decree of the court of first instance. An appeal is considered a continuation of the suit. Therefore, an application under Section 28 is maintainable in the court where the original suit was filed and execution is proceeding. The Court emphasized that procedure is a “handmaid for justice” and should be molded to subserve substantial justice, preventing technicalities from obstructing it.
This interpretation was further affirmed by the Supreme Court in V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Vs. C. Alagappan and Anr. which held that when the trial court and the executing court are the same, the executing court can entertain the application for extension of time, treating it as one filed in the same suit. Similarly, a vendor judgment-debtor can also seek rescission or raise it as a defense against execution.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the expression “may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made” in Section 28 of the 1963 Act must be given an expansive meaning to include the court of first instance, even when the decree under execution was passed by an appellate court. This is consistent with Section 37 of the CPC.
Consequently, the Court concluded that an application under Section 28 of the 1963 Act, whether for rescission or extension of time, can be entertained and decided by the Execution Court, provided it is the court that passed the decree as per Section 37 of the CPC. In the instant case, the original suit was filed in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, and the execution application was also filed there, confirming its jurisdiction.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court concluded that the Execution Court (which was the court of first instance) had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the applications for both extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration and rescission of the contract, even though the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate court. This interpretation is rooted in the understanding that an appeal is a continuation of the original suit, and the appellate decree merges with that of the trial court, making the trial court the “Court which passed a decree” for execution purposes under Section 37 of the CPC. The Court explicitly stated that the procedure should subserve substantial justice, preventing technicalities from hindering it. Therefore, the High Court’s dismissal of the civil revision was upheld, affirming the Execution Court’s decision to permit the deposit of balance consideration and reject the rescission application.
FAQs:
1. Can a court overseeing an execution modify a specific performance decree?
Yes, an executing court, particularly if it was the original court of first instance, can have the power to extend the time for payment or even rescind a specific performance contract under certain legal provisions, even if the decree was affirmed by an appellate court
2. What happens if a party fails to pay within the decreed time in a specific performance case?
If a party fails to pay the required amount within the time stipulated in a specific performance decree, the other party may apply to the court to have the contract rescinded, or the court may, at its discretion, grant an extension.
3. Does an appellate court’s judgment replace the original trial court’s judgment?
In legal terms, an appellate court’s judgment often merges with and is considered a continuation of the original trial court’s judgment, meaning the original court retains powers for execution and related applications.
4. What is Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act?
Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides for the rescission of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property after a decree for specific performance has been granted, particularly if the purchaser or lessee fails to comply with the decree’s terms.
5. How does the Code of Civil Procedure define the “court which passed a decree”?
Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure clarifies that the “court which passed a decree” for execution purposes includes the court of first instance, even when the decree has been passed by an appellate court, facilitating execution in the original forum.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.