Contract cannot be rescinded under Section 28 if non-deposit of decretal amount results from judgment-debtor's non-cooperation.

The respondent (plaintiff) obtained a decree for specific performance on 22.12.2017 regarding an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 18.10.2010.

The decree required the suit property to be measured first; the plaintiff was then to pay balance consideration based on the final area.

Although the defendant issued a letter in 2018 demanding payment, the plaintiff alleged non-cooperation by the defendants (who reside in Mumbai) in facilitating the measurement.

The plaintiff filed for execution in 2022.

In early 2026, the defendants filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking to rescind the contract due to the plaintiff's delay in depositing the decretal amount.

The Trial Court rejected the rescission but ordered the plaintiff to pay interest on the principal.

The defendants challenged this via a writ petition under Article 227.

1. Whether the contract/decree for specific performance was liable to be rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act due to the delay in depositing the balance consideration.

2. Whether the plaintiff exhibited a lack of readiness and willingness post-decree to perform his part of the contract.

Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows for the rescission of a contract if a decree-holder fails to pay the purchase money within the period ordered by the court.

A decree for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree, and the court retains jurisdiction until the sale deed is executed (Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari, 2024 INSC 463).

Rescission is an equitable power and should only be exercised if there is "willful negligence" or an intention not to complete the contract.

Limits of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and M/s Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel), emphasizing that it is correctional rather than appellate.

The High Court observed that the decree specifically made payment conditional upon the measurement of the land.

Since the defendants were residents of Mumbai and the land was in Amreli, their physical presence was necessary for measurement, which they failed to provide.

The Court found no evidence of "willful negligence" by the plaintiff; rather, the plaintiff's act of filing an execution petition in 2022 demonstrated a continuous intent to perform the contract.

The delay was partially attributed to settlement talks initiated during execution proceedings.

Following the principles in Anand Narayan Shukla, the court held that since the decree did not fix a strict time limit and the delay was not intentional, rescission was not warranted.

The Trial Court's decision to balance equities by awarding 9% interest to the defendants was deemed a sufficient and reasonable exercise of discretion.

The court affirmed the rejection of the application for rescission under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.

It directed the Executing Court to ensure the earliest execution of the sale deed.

Liberty was reserved for the petitioners to move an application regarding the specific period for which interest is calculated based on recent precedents.