Judgment analysis of Balbir Singh & Anr. v. Baldev Singh (D) Through His LRs & Ors., in IRAC Format

 Case Title: Balbir Singh & Anr. v. Baldev Singh (D) Through His LRs & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 563-566 of 2025

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgment: January 17, 2025

Issue

1.       Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the defendants' application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for rescission of the contract due to the plaintiffs' failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time.

2.       Whether the doctrine of merger applies when an appellate court modifies or restores a trial court's decree and its implications on execution timelines.

Rule

1.       Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: This section empowers courts to rescind a contract for specific performance if the decree-holder fails to comply with the conditions of the decree within the stipulated time or any extended period allowed by the court. The court retains jurisdiction over such decrees even after their passage.

2.       Doctrine of Merger: When an appellate court passes a judgment, it supersedes and merges with the trial court's decree. The operative decree is that of the appellate court, irrespective of whether it modifies, reverses, or affirms the trial court's decision.

Application

1.       Timeline and Conduct:

o   The trial court decreed specific performance in 1994, requiring plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration within 20 days.

o   The decree was reversed by the first appellate court but restored by the High Court in May 2018 during second appeals.

o   Plaintiffs filed execution petitions in September 2018, immediately sought permission to deposit the amount, and complied on September 7, 2018.

o   Defendants filed an application under Section 28 for rescission in April 2019, arguing that plaintiffs failed to meet the original timeline.

2.       High Court's Findings:

o   The High Court noted that its judgment restoring the trial court's decree did not specify a fresh timeline for deposit.

o   It held that there was no unreasonable delay by plaintiffs in depositing the amount after restoration and rejected defendants' application.

3.       Supreme Court's Analysis:

o   The Supreme Court affirmed that Section 28 grants courts discretion to extend timelines for compliance with decrees based on conduct and circumstances.

o   It emphasized that a decree for specific performance is akin to a preliminary decree, keeping suits "alive" until fully executed.

o   Applying the doctrine of merger, it clarified that once an appellate court restores or modifies a decree, its judgment becomes operative. Hence, plaintiffs were not bound by the original timeline set by the trial court but rather by subsequent judicial directions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that:

1.       There was no willful default or unreasonable delay on part of the plaintiffs in depositing the balance sale consideration.

2.       The trial court and High Court exercised their discretion prudently under Section 28 to extend timelines for compliance.

3.       The doctrine of merger rendered defendants' argument about adherence to original timelines untenable since no specific period was prescribed post-restoration.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming that courts retain control over specific performance decrees to ensure equitable relief for both parties.

Print Page