Introduction:
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India examined the discretionary power of the court and the scope of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. The court's decision in the case shed light on the application of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and underscored the importance of adopting a balanced approach when considering extensions of time for payment of consideration in suits for specific performance.

Background:
The case originated from a civil suit filed by the Respondent, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell. The trial court had issued an ex-parte judgment and decree in favour of the Respondent, directing the Appellant to deposit the balance sale consideration within a specific timeframe. However, the Appellant failed to comply with this order, leading to a delay of 853 days before filing an application seeking an extension of time to make the payment.

Key Findings of the Supreme Court:

1. Discretionary Power: The Supreme Court emphasized that the power granted to the court under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary. It clarified that the court must consider the justice of the case and the behaviour of the parties when deciding whether to grant an extension of time for payment. This discretionary power ensures a fair and equitable approach in specific performance cases.
    
2. Scope of Section 28: Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act aims to provide complete relief to both parties involved in a decree of specific performance. It allows the court to rescind the contract and extend the time for payment. However, the court noted that the exercise of this power is not automatic and must be based on sound legal principles and justifications presented by the parties.
    
3. Delay and Insufficient Explanation: The court observed that the Appellant's delay of 853 days in seeking an extension of time was not sufficiently explained. It stressed that a significant delay without a reasonable explanation should not be condoned by the court. The court cited the V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. C. Alagappan reported in (1999) 4 SCC 702, which highlighted that the court should not grant an extension if the party has failed to pay the amount as per the decree or make a timely application for an extension.

Conclusion:
In its decision, the Supreme Court overturned the trial court's order granting an extension of time to the Appellant. Instead, it permitted the Appellant's application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, thereby rescinding the agreement to sell. The court further directed the Appellant to refund the advance payment made by the Respondent, along with accrued interest. These ruling underscores the importance of timely fulfilment of obligations and advocates for a balanced approach in granting extensions of time. By upholding the integrity of specific performance decrees, the court ensures fairness, equity, and adherence to principles of justice in contractual disputes ¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar