Suit for Specific Performance does not come to an end on the Passing of a Decree and the Court which has passed the Decree for Specific Performance Retains Control over the Decree even after the Decree has been passed: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court ruled that a suit for specific performance does not come to an end on the passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains control over the decree even after the decree has been passed.


The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement executed by the first respondent in his favour for the sale of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and accordingly the Trial Court decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. As per the compromise decree, the respondent agreed to sell the suit land for a consideration. The appellant paid the sum­ immediately to the first respondent. He was required to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,47,500/­ within a period of one month from the date of the compromise decree.

Court observation 

The division bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Vikram Nath noted that Section 28 of the Special Relief Act, 1963 provides for rescission of the contract for sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed.  

The court said that this section gives to the vendor or the lessor the right to rescission of the contract for the sale or lease of the immovable property in the same suit, when after a suit for specific performance is decreed, if the vendor or the lessee fails to pay the purchase money within the period fixed.

The court further noted that as per compromise decree the appellant was required to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,47,500/­. There was a delay of about five days in payment of the balance of the amount. Therefore, he filed an application seeking permission of the court to deposit the balance of the amount which was allowed by the trial court on the same day. Accordingly, he deposited the said amount and the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, the application filed by the appellant seeking extension of time was also allowed by the Trial Court. After a passage of nearly 3 years, the application filed by the first respondent seeking rescission of the contract was dismissed by the Trial Court. This order of the Trial Court has been set aside by the High Court.


The court viewed that, the Trial Court in its discretion has granted extension of time for depositing the balance of sale consideration assigning cogent reasons.  

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restored the order of the Trial Court permitting the appellant to deposit the balance amount.

Case title: Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (dead) v/s Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath) and Anr.

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3794 OF 2022

Click here to read the Order/Judgment 

JurisHour is the fastest online portal for Indian legal news.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *