Holding

The trial court erred in condoning the 853‑day delay; the agreement to sell is rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and the plaintiff must be refunded the advance with interest.

Summary

The plaintiff obtained an ex‑parte decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, directing him to pay the balance consideration of Rs 15,00,000 within two weeks, which he failed to do. After a delay of 853 days, the plaintiff sought an extension of time under CPC 148 and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, while the appellant (the defendant’s heir) moved to rescind the agreement under the same provision. The trial court granted the extension and dismissed the rescission, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay and that equity demanded the court not extend time in his favour; consequently, the extension was erroneous and the agreement must be rescinded. The Court ordered the plaintiff’s advance of Rs 8,00,000 to be returned with interest, and allowed the appeals.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of granting an extension of time for payment of balance consideration under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and CPC 148 after an 853‑day delay.
Whether the agreement to sell should be rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the decree.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 148
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 28

Subjects

Specific performanceRescissionSection 28DelayExtension of timeEx parte decreeEquityDiscretion

Judgment

[2023] 3 S.C.R. 35 35

P. SHYAMALA A
v.
GUNDLUR MASTHAN
(Civil Appeal Nos.1363-1364 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 24, 2023 B
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 : s. 28 – Rescission of agreement to
sell, the specific performance of which is decreed – On facts,
agreement to sell the suit property between the late mother of the
C
appellant and the respondent – Suit for specific performance by
the respondent – Trial court passed an ex parte decree and directed
the respondent to deposit balance sale consideration, however, the
respondent failed to pay the same – After 853 days the respondent
filed an application u/s. 148 CPC and s. 28 of the Specific Relief
Act for extension of time to deposit the balance amount – Trial court D
allowed the application of the respondent while dismissed the
appellant’s application u/s. 28 – High Court dismissed the revision
filed by the appellant – Held : Nothing is on record that any steps
were taken by the respondent either to deposit/pay the balance sale
consideration or even calling upon the appellant to execute the
E
sale deed as per the judgment and decree passed by the trial court
till the application u/s. 148 CPC and s. 28 of the Specific Relief Act
was filed – If the respondent was ready with the money payable
towards the balance sale consideration, he could have got the sale
deed executed through power of attorney after effecting deposit/
payment – In absence of any sufficient explanation, such a huge F
delay of 853 days ought not to have been condoned by the trial
Court – Moreover, s. 28 of the Specific Relief Act seeks to provide
complete relief to both the parties in terms of a decree of specific
performance – Therefore, the trial court failed to exercise the
discretion judiciously in favour of the appellant and erred in
G
exercising the discretionary power in favour of the respondent, that
too with a delay of 853 days – High Court erred in upholding the
same – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 148
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that by
an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.10.2013, the trial Court H
35
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A passed a decree for specific performance of the agreement to
sell dated 9.5.2012. In the agreement to sell dated 9.5.2012, the
total sale consideration was Rs. 23,00,000/-, against which Rs.
8,00,000/- was paid as advance. The balance sale consideration
of Rs. 15,00,000/- was directed to be deposited/paid by the plaintiff
under the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.10.2013, within
B
two weeks from the said date, which expired on 21.10.2013.
Nothing is on record that any steps were taken by the plaintiff
either to deposit/pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.
15,00,000/- or even calling upon the defendant to execute the
sale deed as per the judgment and decree passed by the trial
C Court dated 12.10.2013 till the present application under Section
148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was filed on
7.6.2017/19.06.2017 with a huge delay of 853 days, seeking
extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration. The
reasons for delay are set out hereinabove. The explanation which
was given by the plaintiff, narrated hereinabove, can hardly be
D
said to be a sufficient explanation as to why the plaintiff did not
pay the balance sale consideration as per the judgment and decree
or even did not make an application within a reasonable time
under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act
seeking extension of time for making payment. If the plaintiff 9
E was ready with the money payable towards the balance sale
consideration, he could have got the sale deed executed through
power of attorney after effecting deposit/payment. In absence of
any sufficient explanation, such a huge delay of 853 days ought
not to have been condoned by the trial Court. [Para 5][42-E-H;
43-A-B]
F
1.2. The Court is of the opinion that the trial Court erred in
exercising the discretion in favour of the plaintiff and erred in
extending the time in favour of the plaintiff to deposit the balance
sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- by condoning the huge delay
of 853 days, which as observed hereinabove has not been
G explained sufficiently at all. After the plaintiff was directed to
deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- within a
period of two weeks from the date of ex-parte judgment and decree
dated 12.10.2013, which the plaintiff failed to deposit/pay, even
no application for extension of time under Section 148 CPC and
Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was made thereafter within a
H
P. SHYAMALA v. GUNDLUR MASTHAN 37

reasonable time and was made after a period of 853 days. Nothing A
is on record that in between any notice was given to the defendant
to execute the sale deed as per the judgment and decree on
deposit of the balance sale consideration. The application filed
by the plaintiff under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the
Specific Relief Act seeking extension of time to deposit the
balance sale consideration was hopelessly delayed. Section 28 of B
the Specific Relief Act seeks to provide complete relief to both
the parties in terms of a decree of specific performance.
Therefore, the trial Court failed to exercise the discretion
judiciously in favour of the defendant and erred in exercising the
discretionary power in favour of the plaintiff, that too with a delay C
of 853 days. The High Court has erred in confirming the same
and dismissing the revision applications. Under the
circumstances, the order passed by the trial Court allowing the
application of the plaintiff being I.A. No. 732/2016 seeking
extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration
deserves to be dismissed and I.A. No. 914/2017 filed by the D
defendant – appellant under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act
to rescind the agreement to sell dated 9.5.2012 deserves to be
allowed. However, at the same time, to strike the balance between
the parties the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff as an
advance is to be returned to the plaintiff with 12% interest per
E
annum from 13 9.5.2012 till the actual payment, within a period
of six weeks from today, failing which it shall carry interest @
18% per annum. [Para 8][44-H; 45-A-F]
V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. C. Alagappan and
Another (1999) 4 SCC 702 : [1999] 1 SCR 349 –
referred to. F
Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (D) through Lrs. v.
Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath) & Another
Civil Appeal No. 3794/2022 – inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
[1999] 1 SCR 349 referred to Para 6 G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.1363-
1364 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2022 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRP Nos.2374 and 2304 of
2019. H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A Mithun Shashank, M. V. Mukunda, Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Harshit Tolia, Shesh Narayan Singh, Shrey Kapoor, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the High Court for the
State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRP No. 2374/2019 & 2304/2019,
C by which the High Court has dismissed the said revision petitions
preferred by the appellant herein, the original revisionist has preferred
the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as
under:
D That the respondent herein – original plaintiff instituted a Civil
Suit No. 291/2013 against the mother of the appellant – original defendant
for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 09.05.2012. In
the agreement to sell, the late mother of the appellant agreed to sell the
suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 23,00,000/-, against
which an advance of Rs. 8,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff.
E
2.1 That the trial Court passed an ex-parte judgment and decree
on 12.10.2013 and passed a decree for specific performance of the
agreement to sell dated 9.5.2012. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court
directed the respondent – original plaintiff to deposit the balance sale
consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- within two weeks before the trial Court.
F
The trial Court also observed that in case the defendant fails to execute
the sale deed on receiving the balance of sale consideration, the plaintiff
is at liberty to get it done through process of law. Therefore, under the
decree dated 12.10.2013, the plaintiff was required to deposit Rs.
15,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from the judgment and decree
G dated 12.10.2013. Thus, as per the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2013,
the respondent – original plaintiff was required to pay/deposit the balance
sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- on or before 21.10.2013. However,
the respondent herein – original plaintiff failed to pay/deposit the balance
sale consideration as ordered by the trial Court.
H
P. SHYAMALA v. GUNDLUR MASTHAN 39
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

2.2 After a period of 853 days from the date of judgment and A
decree dated 12.10.2013 passed by the trial Court, the original plaintiff –
respondent herein filed an application before the trial Court under Section
148 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’) and Section 28 of
the Specific Relief Act being I.A. No. 732/2016 in O.S. No. 291/2013
and prayed for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration
B
which the plaintiff was required to deposit on or before 21.10.2013, as
per the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2013. At this stage, it is required
to be noted that after the ex-parte judgment and decree, the mother of
the appellant – original defendant died on 13.01.2015 and the appellant
herein being legal heir of the original defendant was brought on record.
Simultaneously, the appellant, being the legal representative of the original C
defendant, filed an application being I.A. No. 914/2017 in O.S. No. 291/
2013 under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to rescind the
Agreement to Sell dated 9.5.2012.
2.3 Before the trial Court, it was the case on behalf of the plaintiff
in support of I.A. No. 732/2016 that he became sick with Jaundice and D
treated in the hospital from 1.11.2013 to 5.1.2014 and after discharge
also confined to house with High Blood Pressure, Diabetes and other
diseases. It was also the case on behalf of the plaintiff that ultimately on
9.6.2016 when he contacted the advocate he came to know about the
judgment and decree dated 12.10.2013 and the directions given
thereunder. Therefore, it was prayed to condone the delay of 853 days E
and extend the time to deposit the balance sale consideration.
2.4 The said application was opposed by the appellant. It was the
case on behalf of the appellant in support of the application under Section
28 of the Specific Relief Act that the plaintiff has wilfully not deposited
the balance sale consideration and therefore the agreement to sell dated F
9.5.2012 is required to be rescinded under section 28 of the Specific
Relief Act. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that the alleged
illness is false and created. By common order dated 29.06.2019, the trial
Court allowed I.A. No. 732/2016 directing the plaintiff to deposit the
balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per G
annum from the date of decree, i.e., 12.10.2013 till the date of deposit,
within one month. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 914/
2017 filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order dated
29.06.2019 passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 732/2016 & I.A. No. H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A 914/2017, the appellant herein filed the present revision applications before
the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High
Court has dismissed the said revision applications. Hence, the present
appeals.
3. Shri Mithun Shashank, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
B the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the trial Court committed a serious error in allowing the
application submitted by the original plaintiff and extending the time by
directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration and
dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the
Specific Relief Act.
C
3.1 It is vehemently submitted that as such there was a huge
delay of 853 days in submitting the application for extension of time to
deposit the amount under section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific
Relief Act. It is submitted that no sufficient cause was shown and/or
there was no explanation whatsoever given by the decree holder as to
D why he did not pay the balance sale consideration as per the judgment
and decree dated 12.10.2013 or did not make an application under Section
28 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking extension of time to make the
payment of balance sale consideration.
3.2 It is vehemently submitted that even as per the original plaintiff
E he became sick with Jaundice and was treated in the hospital from
1.11.2013 to 5.1.2014 only. It is submitted that it is not believable at all
that thereafter he was confined to house with High Blood Pressure,
Diabetes and other diseases for approximately two years. It is submitted
that therefore in absence of any reasonable explanation, the trial Court
F ought not to have condoned the huge delay of 853 days occurred in filing
the application for extension of time to deposit the balance sale
consideration as per the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
It is submitted that therefore the High Court has committed a very serious
error in dismissing the revision applications.

G 3.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that as such the original plaintiff obtained the ex-
parte judgment and decree dated 12.10.2013. It is submitted that the
original defendant – mother of the appellant died on 13.01.2015. Till her
death, no efforts were made by the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale
consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It is submitted that neither the balance
H
P. SHYAMALA v. GUNDLUR MASTHAN 41
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

sale consideration as directed by the trial Court was paid, nor any steps A
were taken to get the sale deed executed by the original defendant. It is
submitted that the aforesaid conduct on the part of the original plaintiff
disentitles him for any relief of extension of time for deposit of the balance
sale consideration and therefore the trial Court ought to have rescinded
the agreement to sell dated 9.5.2012, in exercise of powers under Section
B
28 of the Specific Relief Act. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision
of this Court in the case of V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. C.
Alagappan and Another, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 702 (paragraphs
14, 16 & 17).
3.4 It is further submitted that even the equity is also in favour of
the appellant. It is submitted that after the ex-parte judgment and decree, C
in the year 2013 the prices of the agricultural land in question have gone
up to Rs. 3 crores. It is submitted that despite the judgment and decree,
non-deposit of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- at the
relevant time, i.e., within a period of two weeks from the judgment and
decree dated 12.10.2013, disentitle the plaintiff seeking any extension D
and it can be inferred that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract and even as directed by the trial Court
and therefore this is a fit case to rescind the agreement to sell dated
9.5.2012, in exercise of powers under Section 28 of the Specific Relief
Act.
E
3.5 Making above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decision, it is prayed to allow the present appeals.
4. The present appeals are opposed by Shri Harshit Tolia, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Tolia, learned counsel F
appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff that the order passed by the
trial Court in an application under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of
the Specific Relief Act is discretionary in nature and when the trial Court
had exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter when
the revision applications have been dismissed by the High Court, the G
same may not be interfered with by this Court.
4.2 It is further submitted that the delay of 853 days was
sufficiently explained by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff
became sick with Jaundice and was treated in the hospital from 1.11.2013
to 5.1.2014. That thereafter and after his discharge he was also confined
H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A to house with High Blood Pressure, Diabetes and other diseases which
were supported by the medical record. It is submitted that the trial Court
had accepted the explanation submitted on behalf of the plaintiff explaining
the delay occurred in making the application under Section 148 CPC
and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and thereafter when the trial
Court extended the time and directed the plaintiff to deposit/pay the
B
balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per
annum and when the same is confirmed by the High Court, the same
may not be interfered with by this Court.
4.3 It is submitted that to strike the balance, the trial Court in fact
had directed the plaintiff to pay/deposit the balance sale consideration of
C Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of judgment
and decree dated 12.10.2013 till the actual payment.
4.4 Making above submissions and relying upon the recent decision
of this Court in the case of Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (D) through
Lrs. V. Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath) & Another (Civil
D Appeal No. 3794/2022, decided on 9.5.2022), it is prayed to dismiss
the present appeals.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.

E At the outset, it is required to be noted that by an ex-parte judgment
and decree dated 12.10.2013, the trial Court passed a decree for specific
performance of the agreement to sell dated 9.5.2012. In the agreement
to sell dated 9.5.2012, the total sale consideration was Rs. 23,00,000/-,
against which Rs. 8,00,000/- was paid as advance. The balance sale
consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- was directed to be deposited/paid by
F the plaintiff under the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.10.2013,
within two weeks from the said date, which expired on 21.10.2013.
Nothing is on record that any steps were taken by the plaintiff either to
deposit/pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- or even
calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed as per the judgment
G and decree passed by the trial Court dated 12.10.2013 till the present
application under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief
Act was filed on 7.6.2017/19.06.2017 with a huge delay of 853 days,
seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration. The
reasons for delay are set out hereinabove. The explanation which was
given by the plaintiff, narrated hereinabove, can hardly be said to be a
H sufficient explanation as to why the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale
P. SHYAMALA v. GUNDLUR MASTHAN 43
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

consideration as per the judgment and decree or even did not make an A
application within a reasonable time under Section 148 CPC and Section
28 of the Specific Relief Act seeking extension of time for making
payment. If the plaintiff was ready with the money payable towards the
balance sale consideration, he could have got the sale deed executed
through power of attorney after effecting deposit/payment. In absence
B
of any sufficient explanation, such a huge delay of 853 days ought not to
have been condoned by the trial Court.
6. It is observed and held by this Court in the case of V.S.
Palanichamy Chettiar Firm (supra) that provisions to grant specific
performance of an agreement are quite stringent. Equitable considerations
come into play. The Court has to see all the attendant circumstances C
including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner
under the contract of sale. It is further observed that therefore, the Court
cannot as a matter of course, allow extension of time for making payment
of balance amount of consideration in terms of a decree. It is further
observed that in absence of any explanation whatsoever even by the D
decree holders as to why they did not pay the balance amount of
consideration as per the decree or did not make an application under
section 28 of the Specific Relief Act seeking extension of time for making
payment, equity demands that discretion be not exercised in favour of
the decree holders and no extension of time be granted to them to comply
with the decree. E

7. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (D) through
Lrs. (supra), relied upon on behalf of the respondent is concerned, it is
required to be noted that in the said case before this Court, the total sale
consideration was Rs. 8,78,500/-. The vendee paid a sum of Rs. 7,31,000/ F
- immediately. He was required to pay the remaining amount of Rs.
1,47,500/- within a period of one month from the date of the compromise
decree. There was a delay of five days only in paying the remaining
amount of Rs. 1,47,500/-. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section
28 of the Specific Relief Act, this Court allowed the extension of time in G
favour of the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration. In
the said decision, in paragraph 11, it is observed as under:
“11.This section gives to the vendor or the lessor the right to
rescission of the contract for the sale or lease of the immovable
property in the same suit, when after a suit for specific performance H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A is decreed, if the vendor or the lessor fails to pay the purchase
money within the period fixed. This section seeks to provide
complete relief to both the parties in terms of a decree of specific
performance in the said suit without having resort to a separate
proceeding. Therefore, a suit for specific performance does not
come to an end on the passing of a decree and the court which
B
has passed the decree for specific performance retains control
over the decree even after the decree has been passed. Section
28 not only permits the judgment-debtors to seek rescission of the
contract but also permits extension of time by the court to pay the
amount. The power under this section is discretionary and the
C court has to pass an order as the justice of the case may require.
It is also settled that time for payment of sale consideration may
be extended even in a consent decree. This Court in Smt.
Periyakkal and ors. Vs. Smt. Dakshyani1, speaking through
Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed that even in a compromise decree,
the court may enlarge the time in order to prevent manifest injustice,
D
and to give relief to the aggrieved party against a forfeiture clause.
The Court observed the following:
“4 ................................. The parties, however, entered into a
compromise and invited the court to make an order in terms of
the compromise, which the court did. The time for deposit
E stipulated by the parties became the time allowed by the court
and this gave the court the jurisdiction to extend time in
appropriate cases. Of course, time would not be extended
ordinarily, nor for the mere asking. It would be granted in rare
cases to prevent manifest injustice. True the court would not
F rewrite a contract between the parties but the court would
relieve against a forfeiture clause; And, where the contract of
the parties has merged in the order of the court, the court’s
freedom to act to further the ends of justice would surely not
stand curtailed.”
G Therefore, as observed by this Court, the power under Section 28
of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and the Court has to pass an
order as the justice may require.
8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision
to the facts of the case on hand and considering Section 28 of the Specific
H Relief Act, we are of the opinion that the trial Court erred in exercising
P. SHYAMALA v. GUNDLUR MASTHAN 45
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

the discretion in favour of the plaintiff and erred in extending the time in A
favour of the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of
Rs. 15,00,000/- by condoning the huge delay of 853 days, which as
observed hereinabove has not been explained sufficiently at all. As
observed hereinabove, after the plaintiff was directed to deposit the
balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- within a period of two
B
weeks from the date of ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.10.2013,
which the plaintiff failed to deposit/pay, even no application for extension
of time under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief
Act was made thereafter within a reasonable time and was made after
a period of 853 days. Nothing is on record that in between any notice
was given to the defendant to execute the sale deed as per the judgment C
and decree on deposit of the balance sale consideration. The application
filed by the plaintiff under Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific
Relief Act seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale
consideration was hopelessly delayed. As observed hereinabove, Section
28 of the Specific Relief Act seeks to provide complete relief to both the
D
parties in terms of a decree of specific performance. Therefore, the trial
Court failed to exercise the discretion judiciously in favour of the defendant
and erred in exercising the discretionary power in favour of the plaintiff,
that too with a delay of 853 days. The High Court has erred in confirming
the same and dismissing the revision applications. Under the
circumstances, the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application E
of the plaintiff being I.A. No. 732/2016 seeking extension of time to
deposit the balance sale consideration deserves to be dismissed and I.A.
No. 914/2017 filed by the defendant – appellant under Section 28 of the
Specific Relief Act to rescind the agreement to sell dated 9.5.2012
deserves to be allowed.
F
However, at the same time, to strike the balance between the
parties the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff as an advance
is to be returned to the plaintiff with 12% interest per annum from
9.5.2012 till the actual payment, within a period of six weeks from today,
failing which it shall carry interest @ 18% per annum.
G
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both
these appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order dated
17.01.2022 passed by the High Court dismissing the revision applications
and the common order passed by the trial Court dated 29.06.2019 allowing
I.A. No. 732/2016 filed by the plaintiff seeking extension of time with a
H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A huge delay of 853 days and dismissing I.A. No. 914/2017 filed by the
defendant to rescind the agreement to sell dated 09.05.2012 are hereby
quashed and set aside. I.A. No. 732/2016 filed by the plaintiff under
Section 148 CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act seeking
extension of time with a huge delay of 853 days to deposit the balance
sale consideration stands dismissed. I.A. No. 914/2017 filed by the
B
appellant – defendant under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to
rescind the agreement to sell dated 09.05.2012 on non-payment of/deposit
of the balance sale consideration by the plaintiff, which the plaintiff was
required to deposit/pay within a period of two weeks from the date of
ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.10.2013, stands allowed.
C Agreement to sell dated 09.05.2012 stands rescinded in exercise of
powers under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. However, the
appellant herein is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the
plaintiff with 12% interest from 09.05.2012 till the actual payment, within
a period of six weeks from today, failing which it shall carry interest @
18% per annum.
D
10. The instant appeals are allowed accordingly in the aforesaid
terms.
No costs.

E Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Tamana, LCRAs)

F

G

H