Kerala High Court
Somasundarn vs Dhanalakshmi on 31 May, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 432 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2017 IN IA No.2409/2016 IN
OS NO.385 OF 2012 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL
COURT, OTTAPPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
SOMASUNDARN,
AGED 41 YEARS AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O.GOPALAN,CHEMPATTAPARAMBIL, KOTTAPPURAM
DESOM,KARIMPUZHA 1 VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/LEGAL HEIRS OF DEFENDANT:
1 DHANALAKSHMI,
D/O.KUNJU PILLAI,PANTHAPULAKKILTHERUVIL,
KARIMPUZHA 1 VILLAGE,OTTAPPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.
2 RAMACHANDRAN.T.P.,
S/O.KUNJU PILLA, PANTHAPULAKKILTHERUVIL,
KARIMPUZHA 1 VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.
BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.SACHIN VYAS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No. 432 of 2017 :2:
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the
order passed under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the
respondents are the legal heirs of the original defendant in OS
No.385/2012 on the file of Sub Court, Ottappalam (for short,
"the Trial Court"). The suit was one for specific performance of
contract. The suit was decreed and the plaintiff was directed to
deposit the balance consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- within one
month from 29.07.2016 and the defendants were directed to
execute the Sale Deed on such deposit. But the plaintiff did
not make the deposit as directed. Therefore, the original
defendant filed IA No.2409/2016 under section 28 (1) of the
Specific Relief Act to rescind the contract. The trial Court after
hearing both sides, allowed the said application as per the
impugned order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The judgment and decree was passed on
29.07.2016. The direction in the decree was to deposit the
balance consideration within one month from the date of the
decree. However, IA No. 2409/2016 has been filed on
27.11.2016 and it was disposed of on 04.04.2017. Till filing of
IA No.2409/2016 or till the disposal of the same, the plaintiff
did not make the deposit. However, he, in the counter
statement to IA No.2409/2016 stated that he is willing to
deposit the balance consideration. Section 28(1) empowers
the Court which pass a decree for specific performance to
rescind the contract on an application filed by the seller on the
ground that the purchaser failed to pay the purchase money
within the time granted by the Court. Section 28(3) provides
for the execution of the document, if the purchaser or lessee
pays the purchase money which is ordered to pay under the
decree within the period referred to in sub section (1). As per
sub section (1), the Court is empowered to extend the time for
payment on an application moved by the purchaser. In this
case, no such application has been filed by the plaintiff.
Without filing an application for extension of time, the plaintiff
cannot resist an application for rescission of contract filed
under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act. I find no
illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
RPR/-
