Judicial Interpretation

The key judicial interpretation, found in paragraphs 15-19, clarifies that the Execution Court, being the court of first instance, has jurisdiction to deal with applications under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, even when the decree was passed by an appellate court. This interpretation is based on Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure and previous Supreme Court judgments.

Court’s View

The Supreme Court held that while applications under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act should be dealt with as applications in the original suit, not in execution proceedings, the Court would not interfere with the order merely on this technical ground if substantial justice has been done. The Court emphasized that its discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution is to be exercised to advance the cause of justice. (Paragraphs 22-24, 30)

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the decree holders had consistently shown their intention to pay the balance consideration, while the judgment debtors appeared interested only in challenging the decree. The Execution Court’s decision to allow the deposit of balance consideration was deemed just and appropriate. (Paragraphs 30-31)

Legal Provisions

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 37 Constitution of India – Article 136

Case of the Appellants (Judgment Debtors)

• Argued that the Execution Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the balance consideration.
• Contended that no application for extension of time was made within the stipulated period of two months.
• Claimed that extending the time for deposit after four years of the appellate court’s decree was erroneous.

Appellants Relied On

No specific case law mentioned in the judgment.

Case of the Respondents (Decree Holders)

• Contended that the Execution Court had jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit.
• Argued that the decree did not specify the mode of payment, necessitating the filing of an execution application.
• Highlighted their consistent efforts to comply with the decree, including filing the execution application within time and offering balance consideration.

Respondents Relied On

No specific case law mentioned in the judgment.

Question & Answer

Question: Can an Execution Court entertain applications under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act when the decree was passed by an appellate court? Answer: Yes, the Execution Court, being the court of first instance, has jurisdiction to deal with such applications as per Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Paragraphs 15-19)

Question: How should applications under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act be dealt with by the Execution Court? Answer: Such applications should be transferred to the file of the original suit and decided as an application in the suit, not in execution proceedings. (Paragraphs 20-22)

Question: Does the Supreme Court always interfere when a lower court commits a technical error in procedure? Answer: No, the Supreme Court exercises its discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution to advance the cause of justice. It may not interfere if substantial justice has been done, despite technical errors. (Paragraphs 23-24)

Question: What factors did the Court consider in deciding not to interfere with the Execution Court’s order in this case? Answer: The Court considered the decree holders’ consistent efforts to comply with the decree, their prompt filing of execution application, and the judgment debtors’ apparent interest only in challenging the decree. (Paragraphs 27-30)

Question: Can the time for depositing balance consideration in specific performance cases be extended beyond the period specified in the decree? Answer: Yes, the Court retains the power to extend the time even after the specified period, especially if there are bona fide reasons for the delay and no intentional default by the decree holder. (Paragraphs 25-26)

Details of Case

• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.
• Date of Order: September 03, 2024
• Case Name: Ishwar (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Bhim Singh & Anr.
• Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 10193 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.29899 of 2017)