Harbhajan Kaur And Ors. vs Rattan Chand Sharma
1994 Latest Caselaw 755 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.

(1) This is an application filed by the defendant-judgment debtor which is to be considered by reference to Section 28(2)(a) of the Specific Relief Act,as noted by this Court in its order dated 3.8.93, 5.10.93 and 22.2.94. The suit property consist of a residential house K-96, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The defendant had entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell which was dated 30.12.1978. Vide the judgment and decree dated 5.4.91, the suit was decreed. The plaintiffs were directed to deposit Rs. 1,68,000.00 within six weeks (from the date of the judgment) in the court.

(2) It appears that the plaintiffs failed to fulfilll their part of the obligation under the decree. They failed to make the deposit of the amount within time appointed by the court.

(3) The plaintiffs sought for an extension of time which prayer was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.7.93. The order was sought to be reviewed which was not allowed. There were appeals preferred before the Division Bench and also before the Supreme Court but they have been dismissed. The order dated 22.7.93 has, therefore, achieved a finality.

(4) The defendant has sought for rescission of the contract and restoration of possession over the house form the plaintiff to the defendant. As the plaintiffs have failed to comply with their part of the decree, the decree at their instance has ben rendered unexecutable. The Contract has, therefore, to be rescinded. The plaintiff must restore the possession over the property to the defendant.

(5) At this stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submit that the plaintiffs may be allowed a few days time for moving an application under Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act claiming compensation from the defendant. Suffice it to observe that ever since 22.7.93 till this day there is no such application moved by the plaintiffs before the Court. Even if the plaintiffs may move an application seeking compensation from the defendant, that application may or may not be allowed, but in any case, the defendant's prayer for recission of the contract and restoration of the possession cannot on any count be resisted by the plaintiffs. For this reason, it is not considered appropriate to postpone the relief being granted to the defendant under Section 28(2)(a) of the Specific Relief Act.

(6) For the foregoing reasons the application filed by the defendant is allowed. The plaintiffs are directed to restore the possession of the house to the defendant.

(7) Since the house is in the occupation of the plaintiffs is for their residence, they are allowed time till 30.6.95 for vacating the house and delivering possession thereon to the defendant.

(8) The plaintiffs are also allowed liberty of moving an application under Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act which application as and when moved shall be considered on its own merits.

(9) These proceedings are disposed of. dusty to both the parties.