RAJINDER SINGH Vs. MAJOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale of the land in dispute was passed in favour of the Respondent and against the Petitioner with the condition that the Plaintiff shall deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 9,600/ - upto September 30, 1980 whereupon the Defendant shall execute the sale deed by October 15, 1980. As the Respondent failed to make the deposit within the stipulated period, the Petitioner moved an application for rescission of the contract on January 27, 1983. During the pendency of this application, the Respondent moved an application on April 20, 1983 for extension of the time for the deposit of the said money and deposited the same in the Court on June 8, 1983. The trial Court, allowing the application of the Respondent, extended the time for deposit upto June 8, 1983 when the deposit was actually made and dismissed the application of the Petitioner by a common order dated October 18, 1984. Aggrieved thereby, the Defendant has come up in this revision.

(2.) THE learned Sub Judge extended the time relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. P. S. S. Somasundaram Chettiar : A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 512. The facts and circumstances of that case, however, were totally different and peculiar. There, the Plaintiff, instead of depositing the mortgage money in the Court, paid it directly to the bank and got the mortgagee rights assigned to herself. The plain -tiff, thus, had paid the money to the mortgagee directly instead of depositing in the Court. As it was found to be a dubious move on her part, so the Court burdened her to make a fresh deposit with eleven per cent interest. The decision rendered in that case obviously does not provide any guidance so far as the present case is concerned and the trial Court misdirected itself in relying thereon.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision is allowed and the order allowing the extension of time reversed. The application filed by the Defendant is accepted and the contract rescinded. The case would now go back to the trial Court for passing an appropriate order under Section 28 (2) of the Specific Relief Act after affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties.