AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 918 ::1999 AIR SCW 481 ::1999 (1) ADSC 496 ::1999 (1) UJ (SC) 486 ::1999 (4) Civ LJ 17 ::1999 (1) CivilCourtC 712 ::1999 (4) SCC 702 ::1999 (1) RecCivR 634 ::(1999) 1 Scale 219 ::1999 (2) All CJ 1521 ::1999 (1) CurCC 99 ::(1999) 1 AllMR 706 (SC) ::1999 (35) All LR 392 ::1999 (2) All WC 1033 ::1999 (3) MadLW 107 ::1999 (2) MadLJ33 ::1999 (3) LandLR 238 ::1999 (1) LRI 137 ::1999 (1) Supreme 389 ::1999 (2) CurLJ(CCR) 576 ::1999 (3) SRJ 184 ::(1999) 1 JT 216 (SC) ::1999 (1) JT 216

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Madras)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. Saghir Ahmad, D. P. Wadhwa , JJ

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.28— Decree to enforce contract for sale - Extension of time fixed by decree to deposit balance consideration - Application for - Can be made to execution Court when executing Court and trial Court are same. When the trial Court and the executing Court are same, executing Court can entertain the application for extension of time though the application is to be treated as one filed in the main suit. On the same analogy, the vendor judgment-holder can also seek rescission of the contract of sale or take up this plea in defence to bar the execution of decree.(Para 16) (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.28— Decree to enforce contract for sale - Time fixed by decree to deposit balance consideration - Extension of - Considerations - Contract in issue entered about 19 years ago - Extension of time to deposit sought 5 years after decree - No explanation put forth for non payment - Time could not be extended. C. R. P. No. 2097 of 1995 D/- 24-12-97 (Mad), Reversed. The agreement of sale in question was entered into about 19 years ago. No explanation was forthcoming as to why the balance amount of consideration could not be deposited within time granted by the Court and why no application was ....