Specific Performance Decree Survives Delay: Supreme Court Rejects ‘Hyper-Technical’ View

The Supreme Court has clarified that courts have the power to extend the time fixed in a decree for performance of its conditions and that a slight delay, by itself, cannot defeat a decree for specific performance.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra allowed an appeal filed by Dr Amit Arya after finding that he had consistently shown readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement.

The case arose from an agreement to sell entered into on December 11, 2004, for a plot of land measuring 2 biswas and 10 biswasi in Kalka, Panchkula district. An amount of Rs 1 lakh was paid as earnest money. However, the sale did not go through, prompting the purchaser to approach the court.

Dr Amit Arya filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement and a permanent injunction to restrain the seller, Kamlesh Kumari, from transferring the property to any third party. In the alternative, he sought refund of the amount along with interest.

The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It held that he was entitled to possession of the land and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months upon receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs 8.05 lakh. Court further held that if the defendant failed to do so, the plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed executed through the court.

This decision was reversed by the additional district judge, Panchkula, on first appeal. However, in a second appeal, the high court restored the trial court’s decree, thereby confirming the order for specific performance.

After the decree attained finality, the appellant filed an execution petition to enforce it. The respondent objected to the execution on several grounds, including that the petition was filed 87 days after the two-month period mentioned in the decree, that no extension of time had been granted, and that the balance sale consideration had not been deposited at the time of filing the execution petition. It was argued that this showed lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the appellant and that the delay could not be condoned.

The executing court dismissed these objections, holding that the decree could still be enforced. However, the high court took a contrary view and accepted the objections, leading to dismissal of the execution petition. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that courts undoubtedly have the power to extend the time fixed in a decree for performance of its conditions. It noted that although no formal extension of time had been granted in the present case, treating this as fatal to the decree would amount to adopting a hyper-technical approach, which courts must avoid.

The bench rejected the view that filing the execution petition beyond the 60-day period rendered the decree unenforceable. It held that such an interpretation was clearly contrary to law, particularly when the courts had already recorded a finding that the appellant was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract.

Court further explained the doctrine of merger, stating that at any given point of time, only one decree can subsist. It held that the decree passed by the trial court merged with the final decision of the high court, and therefore, the decree remained executable.

In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that a delay of 27 days could not be said to strike at the heart of the agreement or defeat the decree for specific performance.

Accordingly, court set aside the judgment of the high court and restored the order of the executing court which had dismissed the respondent’s objections.

The bench directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the executing court, which was asked to proceed in accordance with law and execute the decree of specific performance passed by the trial court.

Case Title: Dr Amit Arya Vs Kamlesh Kumari

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra