Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20794 = 2025:PHHC:161513 = 2026(1) RCR (Civil) 127
Reserved on: 07.11.2025 Decided on: 20.11.2025
Argued by:
Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate and Ms. Sukri2 Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Akshay Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tushar Kush, Advocate, Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate and Ms. Amyia Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 20 -- Agreement to sell of year 1990 – Suit for specific performance decreed – 35 year delayed payment of balance sale consideration – Equitable/ Discretionary relief :
-- Equitable answer does not lie either in denying specific performance altogether, or in enforcing the contract mechanically at the 1990 price – Where there is a long passage of time and substantial rise in prices, the Court, while upholding the decree for specific performance, may mould the relief by directing the purchaser to pay an enhanced amount so that the enforcement of the contract does not operate harshly against the vendor nor confer an unfair bonanza upon the purchaser.
-- Discretion u/s 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (pre-amendment) is meant precisely to address such situations and to secure what is substantive justice between the parties.
-- An amount equal to seventy times (double the time gap between date of agreement and order) balance sale consideration under the agreement is payable by plaintiff/ buyer within three months -- In case the plaintiff fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the time stipulated, the decree for specific performance shall stand vacated.
(Para 57-59)