ASHA DEVI Vs. HARI LAL SWARNKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff this court is satisfied that the trial court erred in not extending the time specially when it did not record any finding that the grounds given for seeking extension of time was not genuine or bona fide. It is well settled that in terms of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court does have jurisdiction to extend the time. The trial court has agreed to rescind the decree of specific performance on the ground that the purposes for which the judgment debtor had agreed to a consented decree has not been served.

(2.) I am afraid this appears to be incorrect, inasmuch as from the case of the parties it appears that the marriage of daughter for which the property was to be sold was relevant when the parties had originally negotiated. The decree was passed long thereafter and as such it cannot be said that the purpose for which the defendant judgment debtor agreed to sell the property still remains the same. Therefore, I think it a fit case in which time stipulated under the judgment and decree ought to have been extended rather than the decree itself be recalled. However, as the judgment debtor -defendant has been deprived of balance consideration for a period of almost six years because of fault committed by the plaintiff in timely compliance of the decree, I think it proper that the judgment debtor -defendant be suitably compensated for the same. Accordingly, the time as stipulated under the judgment and decree for its due performance in respect of payment of balance consideration money of Rs. 1,55,000/ - is extended by a period of one month from today. This has to be accompanied by 6% simple interest for the period for which this balance remained due upto date. On his refusal to accept payment, the petitioner by depositing the same in the court for the benefits of the judgment debtor -defendant, the defendant would be obliged to execute the sale deed and on his failure to do so the same may be executed by the court in favour of the plaintiff. I may note that in spite of newspaper publication notice the defendant -opposite party has chosen to remain absent. Accordingly, this application is allowed with observation and direction as contained hereinabove. There will be no order as to costs.