Vs. Waizuddin & ANR  INSC 101 (2 February 1997)
RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
O R D E
petitioner is the judgment-debtor. A decree for specific performance was granted
by the Trial Court way back in June 15, 1982 in Title Suit No. 46/1976 which way
reversed by the Appellant Court but restored by the High Court. Special Leave
Petition was dismissed by this Court.
the decree for specific performance has become final. It would appear that
Trial Court directed the respondents to deposit the balance consideration of
Rs.500/- and draft sale deed on or before June 7, 1982. An application for extension with
the challen came to be filed and the same was ordered by the Court on August 20, 1982.
petitioner filed an application under Sec.28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act to
rescind the contract. The Trial Court dismissed the petition. On appeal it was
confirmed. In the revision also, the High Court confirmed the same. Thus, this
Special Leave Petition.
true that, as pointed out by Shri Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the Trial Court while extending the time mentioned that it is at the risk
of the plaintiff but having exercised the discretion and allowed the
respondents to deposit the balance consideration of Rs. 500/- it amounts to
that the Court has extended the time. The respondents in the decree of July 7, 1982. The Courts below, therefore, have
rightly exercised the discretion in extending the time for compliance. We do
not find any illegality in the exercise of the power. The SLP is accordingly
Pages: 1 2