Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 35(c),28(1),

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 35(c),28(1),

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XX,R.14,3,S.148

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 12 & 35---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Plaintiff filed suit with regard to area measuring 16 Kanals, 10 Marlas, but Trial Court decreed suit to the extent of 5 Kanals and 8 Marlas---Appellate Court modified the decree and added 9 Kanals and 4 Marlas to the area as was decreed by the Trial Court and the plaintiff was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000 in the court within a period of one month---Predecessors of the plaintiff filed revision petition against said modified wherein they sought the deduction in the sale consideration of the suit property---Said revision petition having been dismissed, decree-holder filed application seeking the permission of the Appellate Court to deposit said amount of Rs.75,000, which application was dismissed by Appellate Court---Validity---Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, had not provided any consequence for non-deposit of the balance amount of sale consideration, therefore, Appellate Court did not mention any such condition in the impugned order---Law did not provide dismissal of suit for non-deposit of the balance sale consideration---Parties could proceed further in the matter for seeking extension in the time for deposit of the balance amount---Decree in the suit for specific performance of agreement was a preliminary decree in nature and not final decree and the court passing the decree, would not stand functus officio---Court had seisin over the decree passed by it and could entertain application on behalf of the plaintiff/decree-holder for extension of time to deposit the balance amount---Plaintiffs put all efforts to comply with the order of deposit of balance amount---At the time when application for deposit of balance amount was filed, the contract between the parties was subsisting and was not rescinded---Appellate Court had ample power to pass the order of deposit, but court refused without legal and plausible justification---Appellate Court, in circumstances had committed gross illegality amounting to miscarriage of justice to the plaintiffs/decree-holders---Impugned order passed by Appellate Court was set aside and application…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492