Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Ishwar (Since Deceased) Thr. LRS & Ors. vs Bhim Singh & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 3rd September 2024
Judges: Hon'ble Justice Manoj Misra and Hon'ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10193 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29899 of 2017)
Advocates: Shri Subhasish Bhowmick for appellants, Mr. Devendra Singh for respondents
Acts & Sections: Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Section 28), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 37)
Cited Judgements: Ramankutty Guptan vs Avara (1994) 2 SCC 642; V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm vs C. Alagappan & Anr. (1999) 4 SCC 702
Introduction
This case revolves around the execution of a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell property. The dispute arose from an agreement made in 2005, under which the appellants (Ishwar’s legal representatives) failed to execute a sale deed after receiving a significant advance payment. Following litigation in the lower courts, the case reached the Supreme Court, where Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala rendered the final judgment.
Background and Procedural History
The origin of the case lies in a 2005 agreement where the appellants agreed to sell the disputed property to the respondents for a total consideration of ₹18 lakhs, out of which ₹9.77 lakhs was paid in advance. Despite notices, the sale deed was not executed, leading to a suit for specific performance filed by the respondents in the trial court.
The trial court granted partial relief, ordering the refund of the advance payment but denying specific performance. Dissatisfied, the respondents appealed to the District Court, which reversed the trial court's decision and directed specific performance of the contract. The appellate decree mandated the appellants to execute the sale deed within two months, but they failed to comply. After a series of appeals and revisions, the case landed before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Jurisdiction of the Execution Court:
Whether the Execution Court had the authority to entertain applications for rescission of the contract and extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration.
Mode of Deciding Application under Section 28:
Should the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act be decided on the original side (as part of the suit) or on the execution side?
Interference under Article 136:
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s order based on the technicality of how the Execution Court handled the application.
Key Arguments
Appellants’ Submissions
The appellants argued that the Execution Court lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit of the balance sale consideration. They contended that the decree, passed by the appellate court, required payment within two months, and since no extension application was filed during this period, the Court could not extend the time years later.
Respondent's Submissions
The respondents countered that the Execution Court was the same as the court of first instance, thus having jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. They also pointed out that the decree did not specify the mode of payment, leaving them with no option but to seek the Court’s intervention. They highlighted that the appellants engaged in protracted litigation to avoid executing the sale deed and that the respondents were always ready and willing to perform their obligations.
The Court’s Analysis
1. Jurisdiction of the Execution Court
The Supreme Court held that the Execution Court, being the court of first instance, had the jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. This is in line with the principles laid down in Ramankutty Guptan vs Avara, where it was observed that the decree of the appellate court merges with that of the trial court, making the Execution Court competent to deal with matters related to execution. The procedure is the handmaid for justice and unless the procedure touches upon jurisdictional issues, it should be moulded to subserve substantial justice.
2. Mode of Deciding the Application
The Court clarified that applications under Section 28 should ideally be treated as interlocutory applications in the original suit and not on the execution side. In previous judgments, including Sanjay Shivshankar Chitkote vs Bhanudas Dadarao Bokade and Ramankutty Guptan, the Court has emphasized the importance of dealing with such applications as part of the suit. However, the Supreme Court did not find this procedural lapse significant enough to warrant setting aside the High Court’s decision, noting that no prejudice was caused to either party. It is equally settled law that after passing the decree for specific performance, the Court does not cease to have jurisdiction.
3. Discretion under Article 136
The Supreme Court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary, aimed at advancing the cause of justice rather than correcting technical errors. It emphasized that substantial justice had been rendered by the lower courts. The appellants had avoided executing the decree through protracted litigation, while the respondents were consistent in their willingness to complete the transaction.
The Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 only because it is lawful to do so. For the purpose of doing complete justice to the parties, the Court may not interfere even if the order suffers from some legal error.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld the orders of the lower courts. The Court held that there was no intentional or deliberate delay on the part of the respondents, and the Execution Court had rightly extended the time for the deposit of the balance consideration.
This judgment underscores the principle that courts should focus on substantial justice rather than procedural technicalities. The discretion of the courts in matters of execution and specific performance, particularly under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, is broad and must be exercised in a manner that aligns with the facts of the case.
Implications for Legal Practice
For legal professionals in India, this case serves as a reminder of the expansive jurisdiction of Execution Courts in matters of specific performance, especially in interpreting decrees. It also highlights the importance of understanding the procedural framework when dealing with applications for rescission or extension under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. Further, the judgment emphasizes the discretionary nature of Article 136 jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, reinforcing the idea that mere technical errors will not necessarily result in the overturning of decisions, especially when substantial justice has been served.
Comments