BHUPINDER KUMAR versus ANGREJ SINGH

BHUPINDER KUMAR versus ANGREJ SINGH

The Court has power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to extend time for compliance with a decree for specific performance, but such discretionary relief depends on the equity and conduct of the parties. In this case, since the appellant did not deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time and failed to provide acceptable material to justify the extension, there was no just and reasonable cause to extend the time, and rescission of contract was appropriate.

Parties
Appellant: Bhupinder Kumar; Respondent: Angrej Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Extension of Time, Rescission of Contract
Specific Relief Property Law Contract Law Specific Performance Extension of Time Rescission of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhupinder Kumar

Appellant

Angrej Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has power to extend the time in favour of a decree holder to pay the balance amount or perform conditions mentioned in the decree for specific performance
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had shown sufficient and reasonable ground for extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to extend time for compliance with a decree for specific performance, but such discretionary relief depends on the equity and conduct of the parties. In this case, since the appellant did not deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time and failed to provide acceptable material to justify the extension, there was no just and reasonable cause to extend the time, and rescission of contract was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Time for depositing balance consideration not extended
  • Contract rescinded as requested by respondent judgment-debtor