Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Extension of Time to Deposit Balance Sale Consideration, Clarifies Rescission Under Section 28 Specific Relief Act Is Not Automatic

Case Name: Chhaju Ram & Others v. Ramji Lal, Advocate
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: CR No. 8634 of 2014
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the executing court’s order extending the decree-holder’s time to deposit the balance sale consideration, holding that courts retain discretion under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to grant extension upon a satisfactory, bona fide cause; rescission of the contract is not an automatic consequence of non-deposit within the original period, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bhupinder Kaur v. Angej Singh supports this limited but real power to extend when justice so demands.

Summary: A decree dated 19.02.2013 directed the decree-holder to deposit ₹1,20,000 within three months; citing serious abdominal illness, the decree-holder sought and obtained an extension up to 11.11.2013 by order dated 11.10.2013. The judgment-debtors’ appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, following which they invoked Article 227 to argue that time fixed in the decree could not be enlarged. The High Court rejected that contention, noting that even the authority relied upon by the petitioners recognizes the court’s power to extend time where the vendee shows a just and equitable cause. Observing that the executing court had heard objections, considered circumstances, and that most of the sale consideration already stood deposited, the High Court found the extension judicious and consistent with the object of specific performance.

Decision: Finding no illegality or perversity in extending time for deposit, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and left undisturbed the executing court’s order granting the limited extension to the decree-holder.