SARDAR MOHAR SINGH THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MANJIT SINGH versus MANGILAL @ MANGTYA

SARDAR MOHAR SINGH THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MANJIT SINGH versus MANGILAL @ MANGTYA

The court has discretion under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to extend time for compliance of a conditional decree for specific performance; this power is distinct from condonation of delay and is to be exercised even after the decree, until execution is complete. Exercising this discretion by the executing court and the High Court in extending time and awarding compensation was justified.

Parties
Petitioner: Sardar Mohar Singh through Power of Attorney Holder, Manjit Singh; Respondent: Mangilal @ Mangtya
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 January 1997
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Order on Special Leave Petition
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Compliance With Conditional Decree, Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, Specific Performance of Contract
Specific Relief Extension of Time for Compliance With Conditional Decree Section 28 of Specific Relief Act Specific Performance 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sardar Mohar Singh through Power of Attorney Holder, Manjit Singh

Petitioner

Mangilal @ Mangtya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Order on Special Leave Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has discretion to extend the time for compliance of a conditional decree for specific performance under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

Ratio Decidendi

The court has discretion under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to extend time for compliance of a conditional decree for specific performance; this power is distinct from condonation of delay and is to be exercised even after the decree, until execution is complete. Exercising this discretion by the executing court and the High Court in extending time and awarding compensation was justified.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special leave petition dismissed
  • Compensation of Rs. 16,000 payable to petitioner for loss of enjoyment of money, as directed by the High Court, upheld