CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on:03.11.2025Pronounced on: 09.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

CRP. Nos.3546, 3548, 3549, 3553 and 1062 of 2025

and 1692 & 1693 of 2018 and 41 of 2017 and

CMP. Nos.277 of 2017, 9317 of 2018 and 6110 of 2025

CRP. Nos.3546, 3548, 3549 & 3553 of 2025

Kesavan

Petitioner in all CRPs

Vs

Jayarama Naicker (Died)

1.Mrs.Gowri

2.Mrs.Themozhi

Respondents in all CRPs

COMMON PRAYER: These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated

10.02.2025 passed in E.A. Nos.505, 506, 504 & 507 of 2021 in E.P.

No.65 of 2018 in O.S. No.21 of 1994 by the Sub Court, Poonamallee.

CRP. No.1062 of 2025:

Jayarama Naicker (Died)

1.Mrs.Gowri

2.Mrs.Themozhi

Petitioner

Vs

Kesavan

1/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

Respondent

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by

the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in E.P. No.65 of 2018 in

O.S. No.21 of 1994.

CRP. Nos.1692 & 1693 of 2018 & 41 of 2017:

1.Jayarama Naicker (Died)

2.Mrs.Gowri

3.Mrs.Themozhi

(Petitioners 2 and 3 are brought on

record as LRs of the deceased first

petitioner vide order dated 10.07.2025)

Petitioners in all CRPs

Vs

Kesavan

Respondent in all CRPs

COMMON PRAYER: These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and

decreetal order in CMA. Nos.4 & 5 of 2017 against E.P. No.63 of 2009 in

O.S. No.21 of 1994 on the file of the III Additional District Court,

Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, dated 19.01.2018 and to set aside the

judgement and decree in E.A. No.197 of 2016 in E.P. No.63 of 2009 in

O.S. No.21 of 1994 dated 03.11.2016 on the file of the Court of

Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

For Petitioners: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan,

Senior Counsel for

Mr.C.V.Vijaya Kumar,

2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

Ms.A.B.Reehana Begum

for Petitioner in

CRP. Nos.3456, 3548, 3549 &

3553 of 2025 /

For Respondents in

CRP. Nos.41 of 2017,

1692 & 1693 of 2018 and 1062 of 2025

For Respondents: Mr.V.Raghavachari,

Senior Counsel for

Mr.S.Indrajith,

for Respondents in

CRP. Nos.3456, 3548, 3549 &

3553 of 2025 /

For Petitioners in

CRP. Nos.41 of 2017,

1692 & 1693 of 2018 and 1062 of 2025

**********

COMMON ORDER

These revision petitions arise out of orders passed in a suit for

specific performance, in Execution Proceedings.

2. The revision in CRP. No.41 of 2017 arises out of dismissal of an

Application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ( in short

'Specific Relief Act') seeking rescission of the contract. All the other

revisions are arising only out of consequential orders and hence, if CRP.

No.41 of 2017 is decided, the result of the same would have a direct

3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

impact on the other revisions as well.

3. I have heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for

Mr.C.V.Vijaya Kumar & Ms.A.B.Reehana Begum, learned counsel for

Petitioner in CRP. Nos.3456, 3548, 3549 & 3553 of 2025/ for

Respondents in CRP. Nos.41 of 2017, 1692 & 1693 of 2018 and 1062

of 2025. Mr.V.Raghavachari, leraned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Indrajith,

learned counsel for Respondents in CRP. Nos.3456, 3548, 3549 & 3553

of 2025 / for Petitioners in CRP. Nos.41 of 2017, 1692 & 1693 of 2018

and 1062 of 2025.

4. The brief facts of the case as follows:

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as judgment

debtors and decree holder. The judgement debtor entered into a sale

agreement with the decree holder in respect of an extent of 1.64 acres

situate in Vanagaram Village on 14.05.1992. The decree holder filed a

suit for specific performance in O.S.No.21 of 1994 to enforce the said

sale agreement against the judgment debtor. After contest, the suit was

decreed and the judgment debtor preferred A.S. No.302 of 2000. In the

meantime, in a partition suit filed the judgment debtor's sister in O.S.

4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

No.148 of 1990, including the subject 1.64 acres, a preliminary decree

came to be passed on 18.06.2003 and a final decree application was filed

by the said sister of the judgment debtor in I.A. No.55 of 2007. The

decree holder sought to implead himself in I.A. No.55 of 2007, in order

to claim the judgment debtor's share in the partition suit. While matters

stood there, the decree holder entered into a fresh sale agreement with the

judgment debtor agreeing to pay an additional Rs.2,10,00,000/-, as sale

consideration. In view of the subsequent sale agreement, the judgment

debtor withdrew A.S. No.302 of 2000 on 18.08.2008. The decree holder

also withdrew his cross objection.

5. The decree holder filed E.P. No.63 of 2009 without disclosing

the judgment in the partition suit and the sale agreement entered into

afresh on 30.07.2008, in and whereby, the decree holder had committed

to pay an additional sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/-. The judgment debtor filed

an Application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in

E.A. No.29 of 2010. The said Application was dismissed on 15.09.2010

directing the decree holder to deposit a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/-. In the

meantime, I.A. No.55 of 2007 filed by the judgment debtor’s sister was

allowed on 29.03.2010, allotting 62 cents of land to the judgment

5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

debtor’s sister in S.No.131/1b. Second Appeal was preferred as against

the final decree proceedings in the year 2014 and status quo was ordered

by this Court. As against the Applications in the Execution Petition in the

suit for specific performance, CRP Nos.142 of 2012 and 3249 of 2013

came to be disposed of by a common order dated 20.03.2015, directing

the decree holder to deposit Rs.2,10,00,000/-. In furtherance of the said

common order, on 03.08.2015, the decree holder deposited the said sum

of Rs.2,10,00,000/-.

6.Challenging the said common order dated 20.03.2015 in the

revision petitions, the judgment debtor preferred S.L.P. No.30401 of

2015, which came to be dismissed on 02.11.2015. It is thereafter that

E.A.No.197 of 2016 came to be filed by the judgment debtor under

Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking a declaration that the sale

agreement which was entered into on 30.07.2008, that is the fresh sale

agreement had been rescinded. However, the Executing Court dismissed

the Application on 03.11.2016 and challenging the said order, CRP.

No.41 of 2017 has been filed.

7. The Executing Court had rejected the objections filed by the

6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

judgment debtor to the last sale deed in E.P. No.63 of 2009 which was

challenged in CMA. No.4 of 2017, which came to be dismissed on

19.01.2018. Challenging the concurrent orders, CRP. No.1692 of 2018,

has been filed.

8. By order dated 20.01.2016, the Executing Court had directed

execution of sale deed in favour of the decree holder, the same was

challenged in CMA. No.5 of 2017, however, the Appellate Court

dismissed the appeal on 19.01.2018 and as against these concurrent

orders, CRP. No.1693 of 2018, has been filed.

9. CRP. No.1062 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order of

delivery passed by the Executing Court, by order dated 01.04.2021.

10. It is not in dispute that on 10.10.2017, the sale deed came to be

executed in favour of the decree holder. The decree holder thereafter filed

E.P. No.65 of 2018 for delivery of possession of the suit property. Before

the decree could be executed, the judgment debtor died on 26.12.2022

and the revision petitioners were impleaded on 04.12.2024. The decree

holders took out Applications in E.A. Nos.504, 505, 506 and 507 for

removal of superstructure, police aid, disconnection of electricity supply

7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

and assistance of Tahsildar to identify the suit property. These

Applications were dismissed by the Executing Court, however granting

liberty to the decree holders to move these applications as and when

necessitated. It is as against these orders, CRP. Nos.3546, 3548, 3549 and

3553 of 2025 have been filed.

11. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel would submit that

the decree holder has played fraud not only upon the judgment debtor but

also upon the Court, by suppressing the agreement dated 30.07.2008,

where the parties had increased the sale consideration by an additional

sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/-. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that

taking advantage of the novation of the original contract and the Appeal

Suit that was pending on that day, challenging the decree for specific

performance, having been withdrawn pursuant to the compromise, the

decree holder has proceeded to seek execution of the original decree

which was for a much lower sale consideration, without even bringing it

to the notice of the Court that the decree holder was bound to pay an

additional sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/-. The learned Senior Counsel would

therefore contend that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has

to necessarily come to Court with clean hands and when he has chosen to

8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

suppress material facts and circumstances from the Court, the decree

holder is not entitled to any equity.

12. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that even though the

Executing Court directed payment of Rs.2,10,00,000/- as early as on

15.09.2010 in E.A. No.29 of 2010, the decree holder has not paid the

amount until 03.08.2015. It is therefore, the contention of the learned

Senior Counsel Mr.V.Raghavachari, that it is a classic case where the

decree holder as plaintiff, by his own conduct, was not able to make out a

case of readiness and willingness and consequently, under Section 28 of

the Specific Relief Act, judgment debtors were instituted to seek

rescission of the contract.

13. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following

decisions:

(i) Esakkiammal Vs. Nambikonar and Ors, reported in

Manu/TN/3361/2021;

(ii) Krishnamoorthy Vs. K.Shanmugasundaram and Ors,

reported in Manu/TN/1445/2022;

(iii) P.Rajasekaran and Ors Vs. C.Kumar, reported in

Manu/TN/6664/2022;

(iv) Union of India Vs. Kishorilal Gupta and Bros,

reported in (1960) 1 SCR 493;

9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

(v) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Boghara

Polyfab Private Limited, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 267;

(vi) Chanda (Dead) through LRs Vs. Rattni and Another,

reported in (2007) 14 SCC 26;

(vii) Rajinder Kumar Vs. Kuldeep Singh and Ors,

reported in AIR 2014 SC 1155;

(viii) V.S.Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Vs. C.Alagappan

and Ors, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 702;

(ix) Bhupinder Kumar Vs. Angrej Singh, reported in

(2009) 8 SCC 766;

(x) Lakshmi Narayanan Vs. S.S. Pandian, reported in

(2000) 7 SCC 240;

(xi) M.Kesavan Vs. A.Jayaraman, reported in

Manu/TN/3500/2015;

(xii) S.Hadit Singh Obra Vs. S.Daljit Singh, reported in

AIR 1975 Delhi 144;

(xiii) Venkadagiri Iyer Vs. Sadagopachariar and Ors,

reported in Manu/TN/0077/1900; and

(xiv) Lata Construction and Others Vs.

D.Rameshchandra Ramniklal Sha and another, reported in

(1999) SCC Online SC 743.

14. Per contra, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the decree holder would firstly submit that there is no merit

in the challenge to the decree for specific performance and there is no

necessity to rescind the contract. The learned Senior Counsel would

submit that though the judgment debtor's application in E.A.No.29 of

2010 was dismissed, directing the decree holder to deposit

Rs.2,10,00,000/-, the decree holder has challenged the order insofar as

10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

the directions to deposit Rs.2,10,00,000/- was concerned and the said

revision was disposed of only on 23.03.2015, soon after, receipt of the

copy of the order in CRP. No.142 of 2012 and CRP. No.3249 of 2013,

according to the learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, on

02.07.2015, the decree holder filed a memo before the Sub Court,

Poonamallee for issuance of challan to deposit Rs.2,10,00,000/- and the

Trial Court passed orders by issuing challan only on 29.07.2015 and

immediately thereafter, on 03.08.2015, the entire amount of

Rs.2,10,00,000/- has been deposited.

15. When the judgment debtor has unsuccessfully challenged the

various orders up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, according to the

Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel, at this point of time, it is not

open to the judgment debtor to seek rescission of the contract. The

learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Executing Court

has rightly considered all relevant circumstances and proceeded to

dismiss the Section 28 Application. In support of his contentions, the

learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following decisions:

(i) Surinder Pal Soni Vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) through

LRs, reported in (2020) 15 SCC 771;

(ii) Sardar Mohar Singh through Power of Attorney

Holder, Manjit Singh Vs. Mangilal @ Mangtya, reported in

(1997) 9 SCC 217;

11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

(iii) Lakshmi Narayanan vs. S.S.Pandian, reported

in (2000) 7 SCC 240;

(iv) A.R.Madana Gopal and others Vs. Ramnath

Publications Private Limited and Another, reported in

(2021) 11 SCC 200;

(v) Bhupinder Kumar Vs. Angrej Singh, reported in

(2009) 8 SCC 766;

(vi) Ram Lal Vs. Jarnail Singh (now Deceased)

through its LRs and others, reported in (2025) SCC online

SC 584; and

(vii) Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar and Another,

reported in (2003) 8 SCC 289.

The learned Senior Counsel would therefore prays for dismissal of the

revision petitions filed by the judgment debtors and at the same time, to

allow all the revision filed by the decree holder.

16. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the

learned Senior Counsel on either side. I have gone through the records

and various decisions that have been relied on by the learned Senior

Counsel on either side and also gone through the orders passed by the

Executing Court.

17. The decree holder and the judgment debtor initially entered

into an agreement of sale on 14.05.1992 in respect of an extent of 1.64

12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

acres comprised in S.No.131/1B, Vanagaram Village, which admittedly

had an extent of more than 3 acres. In order to enforce the said

agreement, the decree holder filed the suit for specific performance. The

suit was decreed on 11.04.2000 and the same was challenged in A.S.

No.302 of 2000. Pending the said First Appeal, on 30.07.2008, a fresh

agreement was entered into between the parties which is not in dispute. In

and by the said agreement, the judgment debtor expressed his consent to

execute the sale deed in favour of the decree holder, across the decree

holder paying an additional sale consideration of Rs.2,10,00,000/-. In

view of the said compromise, the judgment debtor withdrew A.S. No.302

of 2000 and similarly, the decree holder withdrew the cross objection

filed by him. It transpires that despite the subsequent agreement dated

30.07.2008, there have been no steps taken on the side of both the parties.

The decree holder filed E.P. No.63 of 2009, to enforce the original decree

in the suit without disclosing the subsequent agreement dated 30.07.2008

and his obligation to pay an additional Rs.2,10,00,000/-

18. The bone of contention of the learned Senior Counsel

Mr.V.Raghavachari, is that the relief of specific performance is an

equitable relief and the plaintiff who comes to Court with unclean hands

13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

and chooses to suppress material facts and circumstances, is not entitled

to any discretion, much less the discretionary relief of specific

performance.

19. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel

Mr.V.Raghavachari, that the decree holder has by his own conduct and

showing, disproved his readiness and willingness and consequently, the

judgment debtors became entitled to seek rescission of the contract.

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the parties entered into

afresh agreement on 30.07.2008 and that the decree holder attempted to

execute the decree passed in the suit without reference to the enhanced

sale consideration, in and by the agreement dated 30.07.2008. The

executablity of decree was challenged under Section 47 of CPC by the

judgment debtor. Though the said petition was dismissed, the Executing

Court finding that the parties had entered into a fresh agreement, had

directed the decree holder to deposit a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/-. Both the

judgment debtor and the decree holder has challenged the said order of

the Executing Court before this Court in and by two revision petitions.

This Court by order dated 23.03.2015, upheld the direction of the

Executing Court, directing the decree holder to deposit a sum of

14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

Rs.2,10,00,000/-.

20. It is the contention of the judgment debtor that even despite

the dismissal of the revisions filed by the decree holder challenging the

direction to deposit Rs.2,10,00,000/- in March 2015, the amount was not

paid until 03.08.2015 and therefore, there is a clear lack of readiness and

willingness, dis-entitling the decree holder for any equity.

21. However, it is seen from the records that though the order came

to be passed on 23.03.2015, the copy of the common order was made

available to the parties only in late June 2015 and thereafter, the decree

holder has taken steps to deposit the amount which ultimately, after

challan being issued in July, was deposited on 03.08.2015. It is to be seen

whether this delay can be held as fatal to dis-entitle the decree holder to

enjoy the fruits of the decree and entitle the judgment debtors to seek

rescission of the contract itself.

22. Though it has been vehemently contended by learned Senior

Counsel Mr.V.Raghavachari, the plaintiff has come to Court with unclean

hands and played fraud by seeking to execute the decree passed by the

15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

Trial Court when he was a party to a subsequent agreement obligating

him to pay further Rs.2,10,00,000/-, these issues have already been

decided in the earlier round of litigation up to the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. Therefore, I do not consider that in the present set of revisions,

the very same issue can be re-agitated in order to dis-entitle the decree

holder on the ground of not approaching the Court with clean hands. It

was only after being appraised of the subsequent agreement that the

Executing Court directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/- and this

Court also confirmed the said order in 2015. In such circumstances, it

cannot be said that on this ground of suppression, the judgment debtors

are automatically entitled to rescission.

23. In fact, the order directing to deposit of Rs.2,10,00,000/- by the

Executing Court and confirmed by this Court in CRP. No.3249 of 2013

was even challenged by the judgment debtor before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and Special Leave Petition was also dismissed on 02.11.2015. The

Executing Court has rightly negatived the objections raised by the

judgment debtors with regard to the fresh agreement rendering the

original agreement in-executable.

16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

24.The only issue that survives for consideration is whether the

deposit made on 03.08.2015 can be accepted as a deposit within a

reasonable time. It is an admitted position that the original agreed

balance sale consideration which remained was deposited by the decree

holder, was deposited immediately after the suit was decreed.

25. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, reads thus:

“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)Where a contract is rescinded under sub-section (1), the court—

(a)shall direct the purchaser or the lessee, if he has obtained

possession of the property under the contract, to restore such

possession to the vendor or lessor, and

(b)may direct payment to the vendor or lessor of all the rents and

profits which have accrued in respect of the property from the date on

which possession was so obtained by the purchaser or lessee until

restoration of possession to the vendor or lessor, and if the justice of

the case so requires, the refund of any sum paid by the vendee or

lessee as earnest money or deposit in connection with the contract.

(3)If the purchaser 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

17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

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)No separate suit in respect of any relief which may be claimed

under this section shall lie at the instance of a vendor, purchaser,

lessor or lessee, as the case may be.

(5)The costs of any proceedings under this section shall be in the

discretion of the court.”

26. The Section itself enables the decree holder to deposit the

consideration within the period allowed by the decree or such further

period as the Court may allow. If such decree of the Court has not been

obeyed, it gives the judgment debtor an option to approach the Court and

to seek rescission of the contract. As already discussed, in the facts of the

present case, after the order was passed by this Court, confirming the

direction of the Executing Court to deposit the balance sale consideration

of Rs.2,10,00,000/-, in August 2015, the decree holder has deposited the

same. This Court, while disposing of the revisions on 23.03.2015, did

not give any time frame to enable the decree holder to deposit the

amount. Admittedly, the copies of the common order were made

available to the parties only in late June 2015 and the common order of

this Court has also been challenged by the judgment debtor before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed in November 2015.

18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

However, after receipt of the copy of the order, the petitioner has decided

to comply with the direction to deposit Rs.2,10,00,000/- and within a

month, has taken out a chellan for depositing and on 29.07.2015 alone,

the Executing Court has granted permission to the petitioner to deposit

the sum and within a week thereafter, on 03.08.2015, the said sum of

Rs.2,10,00,000/- has also been deposited. I do not find that the said delay

can be termed as unreasonable or fatal to the case of the decree holder.

As already discussed, the fulcrum of arguments of Mr.V.Raghavachari,

learned Senior Counsel was only on the ground that the decree holder

has played fraud and is not entitled to equity. However, it is no longer

open to the judgment debtor to convass the said point which has already

been deliberated upon before this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and has attained finality.

27. In the light of the above, I am unable to hold the deposit

made on 03.08.2025, by the decree holder to be fatal, in order to attract

the provisions of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. Further, it is to be

also noted that the sale deed has also been executed in favour of the

decree holder and it is only the Execution Petition that has been filed for

recovery of possession which is pending. In such circumstances, I do not

19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

find any error committed by the Executing Court dismissing the Section

28 Application.

28. In Esakkiammal's case (referred herein supra), the decree

holder himself sought for extension of time for payment of balance sale

consideration which was allowed and despite the same, there was a

default. In such circumstances, this Court held that the delay was fatal,

following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Bhupinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar's case (referred herein supra).

29. In Krishnamoorthy's case (referred herein supra), this Court

held that the Appellate Court ought to have fixed a time limit to enable

the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration, which would have

given him an opportunity to fulfill his obligation and in such

circumstances, non payment within the original time frame fixed by the

Trial Court would not amount to abandonment of contract and

consequently, entitle to the judgment debtor to seek rescission.

30. In Union of India's case (referred herein supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that once a new contract substitutes the earlier

20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

contract, then the parties would have to work out their right only under

the terms of new contract. However, this decision is of no avail in the

present case, since the challenge to decree and its execution on this score

has already attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

31. In Chanda (Dead) through LRs' case (referred herein supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power under Section 28 is

discretionary and the Court cannot ordinarily annul the decree once

passed by it and the Court does not also cease to have power to extend

the time even though, the Trial Court had earlier directed in the decree

that payment of balance price was to be made by a certain date.

32. In V.S.Palanichamy Chettiar's case (referred herein supra),

the question that arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was whether

the Court, as a matter of course, can allow extension of time for making

payment of balance amount of sale consideration and on facts, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that permitting payment belatedly would

even be going beyond the period of limitation which is prescribed even

for filing the suit for specific performance of the agreement and finding

that there was no explanation whatsoever from the decree holder as to

21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

why the balance sale consideration was not paid, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court declined to grant further time to the plaintiff to comply with the

decree. In view of my findings that there is no fatal delay in depositing

the amount, this decision cannot be pressed into service, to the facts of

this case.

33. In Lata Construction's case (referred herein supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court was dealing with principles of novation of contract. This

decision again cannot be pressed into service at this juncture, when the

same question has already been gone in detail and it is only thereafter that

the decree holder was directed to comply with the novated terms of the

original agreement for sale.

34. Now coming to the decisions relied on by the learned Senior

Counsel Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ravindar Kaur's case (referred herein supra), held that factual issues that

have already been settled cannot be re-agitated in the Execution

Proceedings. I have already discussed the import of this ratio, while

dealing with the decisions regarding novation of contract, that was relied

on by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Raghavachari.

22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

35. In Surinder Pal Soni's case, (referred herein supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the decree was challenged in

appeal, the decree of the Trial Court gets merged with the decree of the

Appellate Court and when the decree holder paid the amount, acting

bonafide, within a month after the decision of the Appellate Court, then it

cannot give rise to a ground for rescission of contract.

36. In Sardar Mohar Singh's case (referred herein supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court does not lose its jurisdiction

after the grant of decree and does not become functus officio and that

Section 28 gives power to grant order of rescission of the decree, till the

sale deed is executed in execution of the decree.

37. In Lakshmi Narayanan's case (referred herein supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when an objection is taken with regard

to the executability of the decree on the ground that the decree has been

extinguished by virtue of compromise, the essential question would be as

to whether the compromise was recorded by the Executing Court.

23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

38. In A.R.Madana Gopal's case (referred herein supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in deciding an application under Section

28 of the Specific Relief Act, while determining readiness and

willingness of the plaintiff, the delay attributable to Court process should

also be considered. In a recent decision, in Ram Lal's case, (referred

herein supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Rule 12A of Order

XX, enacts that a decree for specific performance of contract for sale

should specify the period within which purchase money or other sum

should be paid by the purchaser. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held

that under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court does not

approach the application like one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

where each day's delay must be explained and when the Appellate Court

had not called upon the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration

by fixing a time limit, non payment of the balance sale consideration

within the time period fixed by the Trial Court would not amount to

abandonment of the contract and consequent, rescinding of the same.

39. Assessing the facts of the present case, in the light of the ratio

laid down in the above cases as well, I am unable to come to a conclusion

that there has been an element of willful negligence on the part of the

plaintiff to have delayed the deposit of the additional sale consideration

24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

of Rs.2,10,00,000/-. As already discussed, I have found that there is no

inordinate delay or willful negligence on the part of the decree holder in

depositing the amount after, the disposal of the revisions in March 2015.

40. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision

filed by the judgment debtor seeking rescission of the contract. As a

consequence, the other revision petitions that have been filed by the

decree holder are certainly to be entertained since even the Executing

Court had closed the Applications filed by the decree holder, giving

liberty to move the applications at the appropriate time. The interim

prayers that have been sought for by the decree holder are only to

facilitate proper execution of the decree in favour of the decree holder. In

such circumstances, the decree holder is entitled to relief in CRP.

Nos.3546, 3548, 3549 & 3553 of 2025 and the said Civil Revision

Petitions are liable to be allowed.

41. Insofar as CRP. Nos.1692 & 1693 of 2018, challenging the

rejection of objections of the draft sale deed and directing execution of

sale deed, there is no merit in these revision petitions and these revision

along with CRP. No.41 of 2017 are liable to be dismissed. CRP. No.1062

of 2025 is dismissed subject to the rights of the parties as decided in the

25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

judgment and decree passed in S.A. Nos.94 & 157 of 2014, dated

06.03.2024.

42. In fine, CRP. Nos.3546, 3548, 3549 & 3553 of 2025 are

allowed and CRP. Nos.1692 & 1693 of 2018 and CRP. No.41 of 2017 are

dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions in CMP.

Nos. 277 of 2017 and 9317 of 2018 are dismissed and CMP. No.6110 of

2025 is closed. No costs.

09.01.2026

rkp

Neutral Citation Case : Yes

Internet: Yes

Index : Yes

To:

1.The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

2. The III Additional District Judge,

Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.

P.B.BALAJI, J.,

rkp

26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.Nos.3546 of 2025 etc., batch

Pre-delivery order in

CRP. Nos.3546, 3548, 3549, 3553 and 1062 of 2025

and 1692 & 1693 of 2018 and 41 of 2017 and

CMP. Nos.277 of 2017, 9317 of 2018 and 6110 of 2025

09.01.2026

27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis