IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 8411 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: January 14, 2010 Gurpreet Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Amandep Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mrs. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.9.2010 (Annexure P3) passed by the trial court dismissing the application under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act. Vide judgment dated 29.4.2009, the petitioners were directed to execute the sale deed within a period of two months on payment of the balance sale consideration, failing which the respondents were to get the sale deed executed through the agency of the court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiff- respondent did not deposit the sale consideration, therefore, the sale deed could not be executed. In fact, the operative part of the judgment reveals that the onus was laid upon the petitioner to execute the sale deed within two months on payment of the remaining sale consideration by the respondents. The petitioner did not issue any such notice to the plaintiff that they were ready to execute the sale deed on payment of balance sale consideration. The execution application was filed after the expiry of the said period i.e. on 4.8.2002 and the remaining sale consideration was deposited by the respondents on the same day despite the fact that there was no specific condition that the plaintiff would deposit the balance sale consideration within a period of two months Any how, the plaintiff on moving the application on 4.8.2009 deposited the balance sale consideration, therefore, the petitioner cannot get Civil Revision No. 8411 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** benefit of the provisions of law. Moreover, the court has ample powers to enlarge the time in favour of the decree holder to pay the amount or to perform the conditions mentioned in the decree for the specific performance. The trial court has rightly placed reliance on he judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Bhupinder Kumar vs. Angrej Singh, 2009 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 249 wherein it was observed as under :- “11. In Kumar Dhirendra Mullick and Others v. Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd., 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 763 : (2005) 9 SCC 262, this Court after analyzing earlier decisions, has concluded that when the court passes the decree for specific performance, the contract between the parties is not extinguished. The court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant of the decree for specific performance nor does it become functus officio. The decree for specific performance is in the nature of preliminary decree, and the suit is deemed to be pending even after the grant of such decree. Hence, the Court retains control over the entire matter even after the decree. Section 28 gives powers to grant order of rescission of the agreement which itself indicates that till the sale deed is executed, the Trial Court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree of specific performance. Therefore, the court has the power to enlarge the time in favour of the decree- holder to pay the amount or to perform the conditions mentioned in the decree for specific performance. It is clear that Section 28 gives power to the court either to extend the time for compliance of the decree or grant order of rescission of the agreement. These powers are available to the Trial Court which passes decree of specific performance. In other words, when the court passes the decree for specific performance, the contract between the parties is not extinguished. To put it clear that the decree for specific performance is in the nature of preliminary decree and the suit is deemed to be pending even after the decree. Sub- Section 1 of Section 28 makes it clear that the court does not Civil Revision No. 8411 of 2010 (O&M) -3- *** lose its jurisdiction after the grant of decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio. On the other hand, Section 28 gives power to the Court to grant order of rescission of the agreement and it has the power to extend the time to pay the amount or perform the conditions of decree for specific performance despite the application of rescission of the agreement/decree. In deciding the application under Section 28 (1) of the Act, the Court has to see all attending circumstances including the conduct of the parties.” The crux of the aforesaid judgment is that the court can either extend the time for compliance of the decree or can order rescission of the agreement and these powers are available to the trial court which passed the decree of specific performance. Since the court allowed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration then the inference would be drawn that the court impliedly extended the time for depositing the amount. As such, there is no ground for rescission of the contract. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. January 14, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge