KRISHNA Vs. NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the order dismissing an application filed by the judgment debtor under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act (for short 'the Act') for rescission of the decree. The suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs for enforcement of the agreement dated 16.4.1988 for a consideration of Rs. 48,750/- under the terms of which the defendant had received advance of Rs. 47,750/- and the balance of Rs. 1,000/- was required to be paid within 15 days. On the alleged failure of the defendant to perform the part of the contract, the suit was filed which on its institution resulted in a compromise on 8.3.1991 itself where the court recorded the following order:-

(2.) By the purported compromise, the parties had directed that the sale effected by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant would also stand cancelled.

(3.) The plaintiff/decree-holder did not pay Rs. 1,000/- in the manner contemplated and applied for execution just on the eve of completion of 12 years on 1.2.2003 for grant of the decree. The plaintiff would claim that he sought for permission to deposit of Rs. 1,000/- and the court had granted such permission. The petitioner, who is one of the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, moved a petition under Section 28 of the Act contending that the decree is unenforceable and is bound to be rescinded since the decree-holders did not pay the balance of purchase money which the court had ordered them to pay in terms of the compromise. The court has dismissed the petition holding that the compromise decree itself did not stipulate any particular date before when the amount was to be paid and in any event, the decree-holders had deposited the amount and the decree cannot be rescinded. It is also brought out that some other legal representatives have also filed a similar petition and when it was dismissed, its correctness has not been canvassed elsewhere in any other forum. The petitioner, who is one of the legal representatives, is aggrieved against the order is the revision petitioner before this court.