SARDAR MOHAR SINGH Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY condoned.

(2.) THIS special leave petition arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, made on October 4, 1996 in Civil Revision No. 394/96. The petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondent for sale of agricultural lands in Khasra No. 52, 61, 73, 74, 79, admeasuring 3 -533, 0 -166, 1 -437, 0.384, 0.202 hectares and also an agreement to sell dated July 7, 1977 in respect of lands situated in Village Khode, for a consideration' of Rs. 25,000/ -. The respondent failed to perform his part of the contract and, therefore, the petitioner filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 9A/78 in the Court of ADJ, Mandleshwar. The trial Court granted a decree for specific performance on November 18, 1987 directing the respondent to refund the earnest money of Rs. 15,000/ - and also damages quantified in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ -, as agreed in the contract, within a period of three months and in default to execute the sale deed. The respondent filed applications rescind the decree in execution and he sought extension of time for compliance. The executing Court by order dated March 15, 1996 allowed the both the applications of the respondent and directed him to deposit the amount within three days from that date. In revision, the High Court, while upholding that order, has, in addition to the direction of the lower Court, directed the respondent to deposit a further sum of Rs. 16,000/ - to compensate the petitioner for loss of enjoyment of money. Thus, this special leave petition.

(3.) FROM the language of sub -section (1) of section 28, it could be seen that the Court does not lose it jurisdiction after the grant of the decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio. The very fact that section 28 itself gives power to grant order of rescission of the decree could indicate that till the sale deed is executed in execution of the decree, the trial Court retains Its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree of specific performance. It would also be clear that the Court has power to enlarge the time in favour of the judgment -debtor to pay the amount or to perform the conditions mentioned in the decree or specific performance, in spite of an application for rescission of the decree having been filed by the judgment -debtor and rejected. In other words, the Court has the discretion to extend time for compliance of the conditional decree as mentioned in the decree for specific performance. It is true that the respondent has not given satisfactory explanation of every day's delay. It is not, unlike section 5 of the Limitation Act, an application for condonation of delay. It is one for extension of time. Under these circumstances, the executing Court as well as the High Court had exercised discretion and extended the time to comply with the conditional decree. Accordingly, we do not find any valid and justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court confirming the order of the executing Court when in particular, the High Court has further enhanced a sum of Rs. 16,000/ - to compensate the petitioner for loss of enjoyment of the money. The said amount is given to the respondent in a sum of Rs. 16,000/ -, rightly for the reason that parties contracted for non -performance of the contract. They quantified the damages at Rs. 2,000/ - for 8 years. The Court has given Rs. 16,000/ - obviously in terms of the contract.