IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 598 of 2009() --------------------- OS.16/2007 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------ ANNAMMA, W/O.PAULOSE, PUKKUNNEL HOUSE, KAVALANGAD KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN SRI.EBY P.PAUL RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------ ALIYAR, S/O.MOIDEEN, MANALUMPARAYIL, NELLIMATTOM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.598 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant in a suit for specific performance. Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed directing him to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time fixed. Sale consideration due was not deposited within the time granted in the decree, was canvassed by the petitioner/defendant to rescind the contract. Pending enquiry of his application, plaintiff moved an application for extension of the time to deposit the balance sale consideration, and that being granted the deposit was made as directed in the decree. Consequently, the application moved by the petitioner for rescinding the contract was rejected. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. CRP.598/09 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. The court passing a decree for specific performance as well as the appellate court possessed the power to extend the time for compliance with the terms of the decree, and where time is extended, the suit is deemed to be pending and not finally disposed of. Challenge in the petition is not against the extension of time granted, but rejection of the petition moved by the defendant for rescinding the contract. When extension of time had been granted by the court, the application for rescinding the contract does not survive for consideration. There is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below impugned in the revision. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRP.598/09 3