Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vaijanti Tiwari vs Jai Prakash Shukla on 8 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50746
1 CR-1021-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 1021 of 2025
VAIJANTI TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
JAI PRAKASH SHUKLA
Appearance:
Shri Jagtendra Pd. Bansal - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved
by the order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure A/8) passed in execution
proceedings EXA No.01/2025, whereby the application submitted by the
respondent/decree holder under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
on 09.04.2025 and the application submitted by the petitioners/judgment
debtors under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 have been decided.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
as per the term of the decree, the respondent/decree holder was required to
deposit the remaining amount of consideration within three months, but,
when he did not deposit the amount within the time frame decided by the
judgment and decree, the petitioners/judgment debtors have filed an
application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act, 1963') for rescission of the contract on which the
decree for specific performance has been granted. The learned court below
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50746
2 CR-1021-2025
without considering the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, 1963 has
dismissed the application submitted by the petitioners/judgment debtors and
allowed the application submitted by the respondent/decree holder under
Section 151 of CPC allowing him to deposit the remaining amount of
consideration of Rs.7 lakh. It is submitted that as there was no condonation
of delay application alongwith the application under Section 151 of CPC, the
delay in depositing the remaining amount of consideration could not be
condoned by the court below, instead the court below ought to have allowed
the application under Section 28 of the Act, 1963 by rescinding the contract.
As such, the learned court below has committed error of law and jurisdiction
in deciding both the applications and prayed for quashment of the impugned
order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure A/8).
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
4. It is evident from the decree that the respondent/decree holder was
directed to deposit the remaining amount of consideration within three
months from the date of decree and some other direction to both the parties
were issued in respect of execution of sale deed. From perusal of the
impugned order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure A/8), it is evident that the
remaining amount of consideration of Rs. 7 Lakh has been asked to be
deposited through a cheque by the respondent by filing an application under
Section 151 of CPC. It is also evident from the impugned order that the court
below has opined that the petitioners have not made any effort to get the sale
deed executed by receiving the amount of Rs. 7 Lakh and accordingly held
that the petitioners/judgment debtors could not establish that because of such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50746
3 CR-1021-2025
default the contract can be rescinded.
5. Section 28 of the Act, 1963 provides as under:-
"28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale
or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which
has been decreed.--(1) Where in any suit a decree for
specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of
immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee
does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further
period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money or other
sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor
may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have
the contract rescinded and on such application the court may, by
order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in
default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require.
(2) .........................
(3) If the purchase or lessee pays the purchase money or other
sum which he is ordered to pay under the decree within the period
referred to in sub-section (1), the court may, on application made
in the same suit, award the purchaser or lessee such further relief
as he may be entitled to, including in appropriate cases all or any
of the following reliefs, namely:--
(a) the execution of a proper conveyance or lease by the
vendor or lessor;
(b) the delivery of possession, or partition and separate
possession, of the property on the execution of such
conveyance or lease.
(4) .......................................
(5) ......................................."
6. From a plain reading of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section
28 of the Act, 1963, it is clear that the court may allow such further period as
it may think fit to deposit such consideration which has been directed in the
decree. Sub-section (3) of Section 28 provides that on depositing such
amount, the purchaser can file an application for relief of execution of proper
conveyance and delivery of possession. When both the provisions of
aforesaid sub-sections are read together, it is amply clear that the discretion
lies with the court to allow the decree holder to deposit the amount beyond
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50746
4 CR-1021-2025
the time frame directed in the decree.
7 . From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the
court below has exercised its discretion as bestowed on the court by Section
28 of the Act, 1963 in accordance with law and has directed the amount to
be deposited through cheque in the court. Therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the court below has not committed any illegality,
irregularity much less the jurisdictional error, which can warrant the
interference in this revision. Accordingly, the petition sans merit and is
hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
