A decree for specific performance becomes inexecutable when balance consideration is not deposited within stipulated or reasonable time.

The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 4 of 2010 seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 1 August 2007 concerning agricultural land at Village Bajana, District Surendranagar.

The total consideration was ₹3,85,000, of which ₹1,10,000 had been paid, and possession had allegedly been delivered to the plaintiffs.

The suit proceeded ex parte and was decreed on 28 March 2012.

The decree directed the plaintiffs to pay the balance consideration of ₹2,75,000 to the defendant within 30 days; if the defendant refused to accept it, the plaintiffs were permitted to deposit the amount in court and obtain execution of the sale deed through a Court Commissioner.

The plaintiffs neither paid the amount to the defendant nor deposited it in court within the stipulated period or within a reasonable time thereafter.

The defendant’s delayed proceedings to set aside the ex parte decree were unsuccessful before the Trial Court, although a delayed appeal remained pending.

On 24 January 2024—approximately 11 years, 9 months and 27 days after the decree—the plaintiffs filed Regular Execution Petition No. 1 of 2024 seeking permission to deposit ₹2,75,000 and execution of the sale deed through a Court Commissioner.

The defendant objected that the decree was inexecutable because the plaintiffs had not complied with the payment condition within time.

The Executing Court dismissed the execution petition on 30 May 2026, and the plaintiffs challenged that order under Section 115 CPC.

Whether the execution petition, although filed within the 12-year limitation period under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to deposit or pay the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated in the decree or within a reasonable time thereafter?

Whether the Executing Court could decline execution under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 without a separate application by the judgment-debtor seeking rescission of the contract?

Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to extension of time or execution of the decree despite their prolonged failure to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform their reciprocal obligation?

The Court applied Section 115 CPC concerning revisional jurisdiction, Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribing a 12-year period for execution of a decree, and Order XX Rule 12-A CPC requiring a decree for specific performance to specify the time for payment.

Under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a decree for specific performance is conditional and the court retains control over it until the sale deed is executed or the decree becomes inexecutable; the decree-holder must pay or deposit the balance consideration within the stipulated or reasonably extended time.

The Court relied on Prem Jeevan v. K.S. Venkata Raman, (2017) 11 SCC 57, for the principle that failure to deposit the decretal amount within time, coupled with failure to seek extension and absence of explanation, may render the decree inexecutable, and that a separate application under Section 28 by the judgment-debtor is not indispensable.

It also relied on Habban Shah v. Sheruddin, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 814, which held that specific-performance decrees impose reciprocal obligations, that the court may treat the contract as rescinded for non-compliance, and that there is no automatic extension or condonation of delay; equitable relief requires continuous readiness and willingness.

The Court also recognised that the Executing Court may examine objections to executability under Section 47 CPC.

The decree expressly required payment of ₹2,75,000 within 30 days and provided for deposit in court if the defendant refused payment.

The plaintiffs did neither.

They also failed to seek extension of time, provide any explanation for the prolonged delay, or approach the court when the defendant sought to set aside the ex parte decree in 2019.

Although the execution petition was technically filed within 12 years under Article 136, limitation did not cure the plaintiffs’ substantive non-compliance with the conditional decree.

Applying Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and the principles in Prem Jeevan and Habban Shah, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ prolonged inaction demonstrated a failure of continuous readiness and willingness, rendering the decree inexecutable.

The Executing Court therefore acted within its jurisdiction in entertaining the defendant’s objection and dismissing the execution petition, notwithstanding the absence of a separate Section 28 application.

The Court also declined to order refund of the earnest money because the plaintiffs had remained in possession of the agricultural land and may have enjoyed its agricultural proceeds for several years.

The Gujarat High Court held that a specific-performance decree conditioned upon payment of the balance consideration becomes inexecutable where the decree-holder fails to pay or deposit the amount within the stipulated or reasonable time and neither seeks extension nor explains the delay.

A separate application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act by the judgment-debtor was not mandatory in the circumstances.

The order dated 30 May 2026 dismissing Regular Execution Petition No. 1 of 2024 was upheld, and no order as to costs was made.