Karnataka HC Upholds Specific-Performance Buyers’ Permission To Deposit ₹37,907 Balance, Finds No Willful Default

The respondents obtained a decree for specific performance in O.S. No. 161/1996, directing the petitioners and other defendants to execute a sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration of ₹83,750 within three months.

The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decree on 15 May 2025.

The respondents filed execution proceedings on 17 June 2025 and, on 20 January 2026, applied under Order XXI Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for permission to deposit the remaining ₹37,907.

The executing court allowed the application; the judgment-debtors challenged that order by writ petition.

The petitioners argued that the respondents had neither deposited the amount within the decree’s stipulated period nor sought an extension of time.

Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 empowers the court that passed a specific-performance decree to extend the time for payment or deposit, even after the stipulated period has expired, and to consider rescission for default; neither rescission nor extension occurs automatically merely because the deadline has passed.

Under Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari, a request for extension need not take a prescribed form and may be made when the decree is put into execution, provided it is treated as an application in the suit; the court must assess the parties’ conduct, the circumstances and whether the decree-holder’s conduct shows willful negligence or an intention not to perform.

The court also considered Prem Jeevan v. K.S. Venkata Raman and T.L. Rajagopal v. S.N. Shivakumar on the court’s continuing jurisdiction under Section 28 and the possibility of seeking extension or rescission.

Although the decree-holders had not deposited the balance within the original three-month period, the court applied Anand Narayan Shukla to hold that the absence of a timely, formally framed extension application was not by itself decisive.

The relevant question was whether the decree-holders’ conduct disclosed willful negligence or an intention not to complete the contract.

The execution petition was filed soon after the Supreme Court restored the decree, and the subsequent application to deposit the balance was made within a reasonable period; the dates did not indicate willful default.

The court therefore found no basis to interfere with the order permitting deposit.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition.