- (1.) The short question involved in this case is whether the petitioner was entitled to the extention of time for the deposit of the sale consideration on a decree for specific performance.
(2.) A suit for possession by way of specific performance was decreed vide judgment of and decree dated 1.6.1983 on the condition of deposit of Rs. 29,250/- for payment to the judgment-debtor within one month from the date of the decree. Undisputedly, the period for deposit did expire during vacation when the civil Courts were closed. On re-opening of the Courts, the petitioner deposited Rs. 12,250/- in cash and offered a cheque for Rs. 17,000/- in favour of the judgment-debtor at Punjab National Bank, Sector 28, Chandigarh by the Punjab Scheduled Caste Land Development and Finance Corporation, Chandigarh as the petitioner had obtained a loan from the said institution and according to the rules the money was payable to the vendor alone. On the application preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to accept the cheque as well as the money deposited or in the alternative for the extension of time, on 16.7.1983 a notice was issued to the respondent who declined to accept the cheque as well the amount deposited inter alia, contending that once the time granted having been already expired and the application for the same dismissed, the Court becomes functus officio.
(3.) The learned trial Court relied on Pandurang and another v. Saraswati Bai and another, 1976 AIR(Bom) 369wherein it was observed that the Civil Court has no power to extend the time even in the decree. The said view is contrary to the view laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Kalpana Saraswati v. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar, 1980 AIR(SC) 512, wherein it has been observed that :- "Specific performance is on equitable relief and he who seeks equity can be put on terms to ensure that equity is done to the opposite party even while granting the relief. The final end of law is justice and so the means to it too should be informed by enquiry. That is why he who seeks equity shall do equity." Undisputedly the respondent has denied the execution of the agreement. Even when the suit was decreed all attempts were made by the respondent to non-suit the petitioner. The present objections are one in the series. I am fully satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for extension of time inasmuch as the requisite amount was offered in the Court on the re-opening of the Courts, the time upto which the decree-holder was well within his right to do so. My observations further find support from the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Johri Singh v. Sukh Paul Singh and others, 1989 3 JT 582(SC).;