Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 28 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 115; Order XXI Rule 34 Specific performance — Decree directing payment of balance consideration within stipulated time — Failure to deposit amount within time — Issuance of challan for deposit without notice to judgment-debtors — No application under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act — No reasons recorded — Held, trial Court committed serious error — Issuance of challan cannot be treated as extension of time — Order set aside. (Paras 13–15)

advocatemmmohan

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 28
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 115; Order XXI Rule 34

Specific performance — Decree directing payment of balance consideration within stipulated time — Failure to deposit amount within time — Issuance of challan for deposit without notice to judgment-debtors — No application under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act — No reasons recorded — Held, trial Court committed serious error — Issuance of challan cannot be treated as extension of time — Order set aside.
(Paras 13–15)

Specific performance decree — Nature of decree — Court retains control over decree — Exercise of discretion under Section 28 — Mandatory requirement of opportunity to opposite party — Discretion cannot be exercised mechanically or without notice.
(Paras 11–14)

Execution proceedings — Partial compliance by some judgment-debtors — Execution of sale deed for half share — Remaining judgment-debtors refusing execution — Deposit of consideration after long delay — Court must examine sufficiency of reasons before permitting deposit.
(Paras 3–5, 13)

Procedural law — Lodgment schedule — Issuance of challan — Cannot substitute a reasoned judicial order — Absence of application under Section 28 — Order vitiated.
(Paras 14–15)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance on 05.06.2017, directing payment of Rs.65,50,000/- within two months, and directing defendants to execute a registered sale deed thereafter (Paras 1–2).

2. The decree-holders initiated execution under Order XXI Rule 34 CPC. Two judgment-debtors (Nos.10 & 11) voluntarily received their half share of balance consideration and executed a registered sale deed on 05.09.2019 for 1.42 cents (Para 3).

3. With respect to the remaining judgment-debtors, the decree-holders asserted that they refused to receive consideration and sought execution through Court for the remaining half share (Para 3).

4. The judgment-debtors opposed execution, contending that:

   • Balance consideration was not deposited within the time fixed in the decree;

   • No application was filed seeking extension of time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act;

   • The agreement stood rescinded by operation of law (Para 3(b)).

5. On 10.05.2023, a lodgment schedule was filed seeking issuance of challan for Rs.32,75,000/-, and by docket order dated 21.06.2023, the executing Court issued challan without notice to judgment-debtors (Para 4).

6. Only thereafter, a memo dated 26.06.2023 was filed explaining alleged refusal by judgment-debtors to receive the amount (Para 5).

7. Defendants 5, 8 & 9 filed the present revision under Section 115 CPC, assailing the docket order permitting deposit without notice or reasons (Paras 6–8).

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The High Court examined Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, which empowers the Court to:

   • Extend time for payment,

   • Or rescind the contract,
     but only upon judicial application of mind and in appropriate proceedings (Paras 11–12).

2. The Court noted that all precedents cited by both sides lay down a common principle:
   discretion under Section 28 is fact-dependent, equitable, and cannot be exercised as a matter of course (Para 11).

3. Reliance by judgment-debtors on V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar v. C. Alagappan and P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan highlighted that:

   • Absence of explanation for long delay,

   • Failure to seek extension within reasonable time,
     disentitles the decree-holder to discretionary relief (Para 9).

4. Even though Section 28 enables the Court to retain control over a specific performance decree, such power:

   • Does not dispense with notice,

   • Does not dispense with reasons, and

   • Cannot be exercised through a mere docket order (Paras 13–14).

5. The High Court emphasised that issuance of challan is not equivalent to extension of time, unless preceded by:

   • An application invoking Section 28,

   • Opportunity to the judgment-debtors,

   • A reasoned judicial order (Para 14).

---

OPINION OF THE COURT (RATIO DECIDENDI)

1. The Court held that the executing Court committed a serious procedural and jurisdictional error by issuing challan for deposit of balance sale consideration:

   • Without notice to judgment-debtors,

   • Without an application under Section 28,

   • Without recording reasons,

   • And even before the memo explaining delay was filed (Paras 13–14).

2. The Court categorically ruled that:

   “Issuance of challan for deposit of amount cannot be treated as extension of the time in the decree for payment of the balance amount of consideration.”
   (Para 14)

3. Since discretion under Section 28 was never properly invoked or exercised, the impugned docket order was held unsustainable in law (Paras 14–15).

4. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the docket order dated 21.06.2023, with no order as to costs (Para 15).