As per case facts, a specific performance suit was decreed, which led to a fresh agreement with increased consideration during the appeal. The decree holder then pursued execution of the ... original decree without initially disclosing the new terms. The Executing Court, aware of the new agreement, directed payment of the additional sum, which was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. The judgment debtor sought to rescind the contract under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, alleging fraud and delay in payment, but this was dismissed. The High Court was asked to review these orders along with other challenges regarding execution of the sale deed and possession. The question arose whether the judgment debtor was entitled to rescission of the contract due to alleged fraud by the decree holder and delay in depositing the additional sale consideration, and whether the deposit made was within a reasonable time. Finally, the High Court held that the allegations of fraud and suppression had been addressed in prior litigation. The Court found no inordinate or willful delay in depositing the additional consideration. Consequently, the judgment debtor's revisions were dismissed, and the decree holder's revisions related to facilitating execution were allowed.