Case name: BALBIR SINGH & ANR ETC VERSUS BALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS. ETC
Case number: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 563-566 OF 2025
Date: 02-01-2025
Quorum: J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 09.09.2022 in Civil Revision No. 6706 of 2019, Civil Revision No. 6952 of 2019, Civil Revision No. 6980 of 2019 and Civil Revision No. 7053 of 2019 respectively by which the high court dismissed the applications of the original defendant by the common order and thereby permitted the order passed by the executing order in confirming the plaintiffs petition in depositing the balance sale consideration with the proper condone delay petitions and rejected the application filed by the defendant under section 28 of specific relief act, 1963 for rescission of contract. Now the case is before the supreme court of India under CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 563-566 OF 2025.
ISSUES
- Whether the order and impugned judgment passed by the high court is invalid?
- Whether the plaintiffs delay in depositing the remaining amount constitute justification for rescission of contract?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- SECTION 28 OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 – Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed.
- DOCTRINE OF MERGER: in the present case, the judgment of trial court and appellate court merged and formed as a single operative decree.
- ORDER XX RULE 12-A OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE – Decree for specific performance of contract for the sale or lease of immovable property.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS FOR APPELLANT
- The appellant contended that the delay in depositing the balance amount within the stipulated time of 20 days from the date of order passed by the high court Punjab & Haryana.
- The appellant emphasised on the doctrine merger and contended that the original decree timeline for the payment of balance amount is revived upon the restoration of the decision of the executing trial court.
- Under section 28 of specific relief act it is justified for rescission of contract due to the failure on the part of the plaintiff within the original timeline
ARGUMENTS FOR RESPONDENT
- The high court order does not specify any time limit for depositing the balance amount of sale for consideration.
- The respondent contended that they got the permission for the delay from the executing court and deposited the remaining amount in 2018, by establishing good faith.
- The rescission of contract under section 28 of specific relief act will not come into the play since there is no deliberate non compliance or there is no unreasonable delay in depositing the balance consideration for sale.
ANALYSIS
- IMPACT OF MERGER: The trial court decree is merged with the order and judgment passed by the high court by allowing the second appeal. By doctrine of merger the judgment of the high court is now an operative decree which does not specify any time limit.
- APPLICABILITY OF SEC 28 it is the discretion of the court in allowing the application under section 28 and the delay of plaintiff in depositing the amount for sale consideration is deemed just and fair.
JUDGMENT
The supreme court of India upheld the order of the high court of Punjab & Haryana dated 09-09-2022, confirmed the dismissal of the defendant’s application under section 28 of specific relief act. The appeals were dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The judgment by the supreme court of India highlighted the importance and the discretionary power of the courts when it comes to specific relief acts in specific performance and gave the significance of the use of doctrine of merger in appellate proceedings. This judgment ensures justice and fairness are upheld by the courts.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: MUTHULAKSHMI B
