MANOJ Vs. UMESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts that give place to proposition of law: Whether Court has power to extend time stipulated in compromise decree I. The legal position that presents itself in this case is whether the period prescribed in a consent decree brought through an Award of the Lok Adalat could be extended by a Court in its jurisdiction. In a suit for specific performance, the parties had entered into a compromise in writing on 31.10.2009 under the terms of which the plaintiff undertook to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 3,41,84,125/- within five days from 01.02.2010 and would get the sale deed registered. The compromise stipulated that if the amount was not deposited within time, the plaintiff's claim would be dismissed and the earnest money of Rs. 38 lacs paid at the time of the agreement namely on 4.12.2006 shall stand forfeited. After the award was passed admittedly, the plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the award but instead he moved an application under Section 148 CPC for extension of time of three months for complying with the obligation to deposit the money. The Lok Adalat which had originally passed the Award in terms of the compromise between the parties dismissed the application on 26.02.2010. This order was contested by the plaintiff himself through the present revision petition and this Court had directed the matter for fresh consideration by the Lok Adalat by its order dated 28.07.2010.

(2.) From the case file, it appears that after passing the order dated 28.07.2010, an application in C.M. No.7205-CII of 2011 was moved by the respondents on 15.03.2011 seeking for modification of the order dated 28.07.2010 on the ground that Permanent Lok Adalat in Faridabad has been abolished and the revision petition be heard on merits by this Court. On 02.04.2012 the applicants-respondents submitted that Chairman and Members of Permanent Lok Adalat at Faridabad have been appointed and hence they do not want to press the application and this Court disposed of the same as not pressed. Subsequently, yet another application in C.M. No.20804-CII of 2012 was moved before this Court on 13.08.2012 but this time, it was at the instance of the petitioner seeking for recall of the order passed by this Court on 28.07.2010 stating that the earlier application in C.M. No.7205-CII of 2011 was not pressed by the respondents under the wrong impression that the Chairman and Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat have been appointed but actually, it was the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility) which was appointed. This application was allowed by this Court on 09.10.2012 recalling the order passed on 28.07.2010 and the main petition was ordered to be heard on merits afresh.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act that allows for the stipulation of time does not limit the power of the Court even in respect of compromise decrees. The counsel would, therefore, argue that since time is not of the essence of the contract in respect of sale of immovable property, a valuable right in relation to a relief for specific performance cannot be denied by the mere fact that the amount is not deposited. The counsel would refer me to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mangala Ghosh Vs. Rabindra Nath Hazra, 1987 AIR(Cal) 307 that the Court would have a power to extend the time for depositing money even in a compromise decree by resort to the powers of the Court under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. The counsel would also refer me to the judgment of this Court in Kedar Nath and others Vs. Kanwal Bhatia, 1997 4 RCR(Civ) 625 bthat in contract of sale of immovable property, time is not of the essence and a trial Court which decrees the suit directing payment of balance of consideration within a particular time will also have power to extend the time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act itself.