WHEN TIME ISN’T THE ENEMY : COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF JUSTICE OVER TECHNICALITY

CASE NAME : Ishwar (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Bhim Singh & Anr.

CASE NO. : Civil Appeal No. 10193 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29899 of 2017)

DATE : September 3, 2024

QUORUM : Justice Manoj Misra, Justice J.B. Pardiwala

?

FACTS OF THE CASE

This deal is in the nature of an action for the annexed remedy of specific performance of a contractual agreement to dispose of an immovable property. Respondents namely Bhim Singh & Anr agreed and entered into the agreement of sale with the appellant’s Ishwar, since deceased and his legal representatives on 18-05-2005 for the property worth ? 18 lakhs for receiving ? 9. Out of which 77 lakhs were paid in advance, It is also evident from the following: The appellants did not perform the sale deed after issuance of a notice and as a result the respondents had to approach the trial court by filing a suit for specific performance.

?

This came as the trial court partly granted the suit on February 28, 2011, by ordering the appellants to refund the earnest money but refused to grant the order for specific performance. The respondents appealed and the court of appeal set aside the judgment of the lower court, and directed that the appellants complete the sale by executing the sale deed upon payment of the balance price of Ks.200/-within two months as contained in the agreement. The appellants then sought to revise this decision through a second appeal which like the previous one was heard and rejected on 7 November 2013.

?

After filing the instant appeal, the appellants challenged the legal action to execute the sale deed thus resulting to execution proceedings. The decree-holder submitted the application to seek the time for deposit of the balance amount as well as sought permission to do so through execution proceedings.

?

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1.Whether there was merit in the ruling made by the Execution Court to enable the appellant to make the balance sale consideration as prescribed by the decree.

2.Whether section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 afforded right to the appellant to obtain rescission of the contract for the delay in payment.

3.Where the application for rescission and extension of time falls whether it should be dealt under the original suit or under the execution proceedings.

?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1.Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: As per this section of this piece of legislation, the court can rescind the contract if the party that sought for specific performance failed to pay the balance consideration as specified within the decree time.

?

2.Article 136 of the Constitution of India:?As a matter of fact, discretionizing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to intervene in cases in order to do significant justice is quite accurate.

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT

?

1.The appellants’ counsel submitted that the Execution Court had no power to grant an extension of time after the balance sale consideration for the reason that the decree under execution was passed by the appellate court, not the trial one.

?

2.They argued that from the decree it was clear that the balance sale consideration was directed to be deposited within a period of two months from the date of the judgment of the appellate court. Because no such a request was made within the above mentioned timeframe, the Execution Court could not have extended it after the four years’ time had elapsed.

?

3.The appellants pleaded the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 because of the failure of the decree-holders (respondents) to perform the terms of the decree by not depositing the balance consideration as provided for as per the decree on the appellants.

?

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

1.The respondents affirmed that the Execution Court had proper jurisdiction to entertain their application because all of the processes including the original action and the execution process were before the same court which is the Hon’ble the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Kaithal. Hence, it had the legal right to do so, that is, to extend time for deposit.

?

2.The respondents stated that the decree did not indicate how, when and where the remaining consideration would be deposited. On this premise, they made their application to deposit the amount through the Execution Court which was proper. They had gone for execution immediately after the decree had been passed and there was no attempt made by them to willfully delay the proceedings.

?

3.From the results shown in the responses above, the respondents were ready and willing to honor the commitment spelled out in the agreement. They had paid the balance consideration within the said period by offering the balance consideration by challenging the decree in the higher courts by the appellants had avoided its execution.

?

4.The respondents were very much concerned with the fact that the appellants through their aggressive appeal process such as Second Appeal and Special Leave Petition led to the delay of the execution of the decree. As for those Appeals that have been dismissed, the respondents were justified to act in good faith to seek the blessing of the court to apply for the remaining required deposition and proceed with the sale.

?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Execution Court and as a result the respondents were allowed to deposit the balance sale consideration. The Court ruled that:

?

1.Jurisdiction of the Execution Court:?The Execution Court in particular, had the jurisdiction to entertain the application for extension of time to pay the balance consideration and to refuse the application for rescission of the contract. The Court pointed out that in terms of provision of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the application might be launched in the execution proceedings because the execution and the original suit were heard by the same court.

?

2.Application to be treated in the Original Suit:?That the application which ought to be filed under Section 28 should be treated to be part of the original suit, it did not in the least prejudice appellants to do it as part of the execution proceedings see Section 76 Civil Process Act, further, no objection to this technicality was raised by the appellants during the execution proceedings.

?

3.Discretionary Jurisdiction:?I considered Article 136 jurisdiction of the Court discretionary and is used to do complete justice. It pointed out that the appellants tried to delay the execution of the sale deed and they filed various legal proceedings. The respondents could not deposit the amount to the ent trusted accounts at the initial time because the appellants constantly filed legal suits and thus there was no default deliberately committed by the respondents.

?

The respondents pointed out that the appellants’ conduct evidenced by the Second Appeal and Special Leave Petition was the major cause of delay in the execution of the decree. After the above-mentioned appeals were refused, the respondents have done in good faith to proceed for permission to pay the balance amount and effect the sale.

?

CONCLUSION

The appeals that were made by the respondents were upheld by the Supreme Court, by holding that the respondents were entitled to the specific performance of the contract. Reasons for the delay in deposit was affirmed by the appellants actions which led to unworthy delay. On procedural aspect, the Court said that the appellant had received substantial justice and there was no legal lapse that can warrant the interference of the Court. The appeal was dismissed and the parties ordered to and pay their cost in the application.

?

The judgment supports the discretion of the court according to the need and necessities in the cases of specific performance where the extension of time is not improper due to the fault of the decree-holder. It also brings out the argument that technicalities should not be used to defeat justice that is substantial.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

?

WRITTEN BY: PAYAL DEVNANI