In a later judgment, the Incomparable Court of India conveyed a critical administering within the case of Ishwar (Since Perished) Thr. LRs & Ors. v. Bhim Singh & Anr., wherein it maintained the optional powers of the Execution Court to expand the time for store of adjust deal thought in a suit for particular execution. This judgment gives basic experiences into the translation of Area 28 of the Particular Help Act, 1963, and the purview of Execution Courts in managing with things post-decree.
Background of the Case
The legitimate fight started when the respondents recorded a suit for particular execution of an assention to offer dated May 18, 2005, charging that the appellants had concurred to offer the property for a add up to thought of ₹18 lakhs, of which ₹9.77 lakhs was paid in progress. In spite of a lawful take note, the appellants fizzled to execute the deal deed, driving the respondents to look for legal intercession.
The trial court somewhat proclaimed the suit, coordinating the appellants to discount the sincere cash with intrigued. Disappointed with this choice, the respondents requested, and the re-appraising court allowed particular execution, coordinating the appellants to execute the deal deed upon installment of the adjust thought inside two months.
Dispute over Execution
After the appellate decree, the respondents quickly submitted an execution application, asking for the court's help in having the sale deed carried out and the remaining payment deposited. Nonetheless, the appellants contested this claim by stating that the Execution Court did not have the authority to prolong the deadline for deposit since the decree from the appellate court did not specifically permit such an extension.
The Supreme Court focused on determining if the Execution Court had the authority to consider requests for extending the deadline to pay the remaining sale amount under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Supreme Court Analysis
The Supreme Court, referencing its earlier decisions, held that the Execution Court had the jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit of the balance consideration. It emphasized that the "court of first instance" includes the Execution Court under Section 37 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Court stated:
"Following the view taken in Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara, we hold that the expression 'may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made' as used in Section 28 of the 1963 Act must be accorded an expansive meaning so as to include the court of first instance even though the decree under execution is passed by the appellate court".
Further, the Court reiterated the principle that the decree for specific performance continues to bind the court, allowing it to exercise discretion in matters related to the execution of the decree. It stated:
"It is equally settled law that after passing the decree for specific performance, the Court does not cease to have any jurisdiction. The Court retains control over the decree even after the decree has been passed"(1).
Conclusion
The decision of the Supreme Court in this case highlights the significance of prioritizing substantial justice instead of procedural technicalities. By granting the Execution Court the authority to prolong the deadline for deposit, the Court made sure that the judgment creditors were not unfairly denied their rightful remedy because of the procedural delays initiated by the judgment debtors. The ruling acts as a guiding principle in supporting the discretionary authority of courts in carrying out orders for specific performance, particularly when the recipients of the order have demonstrated ongoing willingness to follow the court's instructions.
This case highlights the judiciary's role in balancing procedural law with the equitable principles underlying the Specific Relief Act, ensuring that justice is not denied due to technicalities.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Supreme Court judgment specific performance Section 28 Specific Relief Act Execution Court jurisdiction appellate court decree balance sale consideration Ramankutty Guptan case civil appellate jurisdiction legal discretion substantial justice.
