SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 4. 8. 2000 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the appeal was allowed and the application of the petitioner filed under Section 28 of specific Relief Act was rejected. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case is that Man Singh, respondent No. 3, filed suit against the petitioner for specific performance of the agreement with the allegations that the petitioner entered into agreement to sell the land in dispute for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000. He was paid Rs. 1,17,000 but did not execute the sale-deed. The suit was decreed by the trial court. 2 The petitioner preferred first appeal against the decree of the trial court. It was dismissed on 29. 2. 1998. He filed second appeal against this judgment. The second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 16. 11. 1998. He preferred special leave petition against the judgment of the High court. The special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19. 2. 1999. He further filed application for review against the order dated 19. 2. 1999. The review application against this order was rejected on 15. 7. 1999. ( 3 ) THE judgment-debtor, respondent No. 3, filed execution application on 3rd April. 1999. The petitioner filed objection to it on 20th August, 1999 after three months of filing of the execution application alleging that the decree-holder was not willing to get the sale-deed executed and It was liable to be rejected. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific relief Act on 23rd August, 1999 for rescission of contract for sale which was decreed by the court. The executing court allowed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 28 of the act vide order dated 25. 8. 1999. Respondent No. 3 filed revision against this order. The revisional court set aside the order dated 25. 8. 1999 and remanded the matter to the executing court. The executing court decided the execution application afresh keeping in view the observation made in the order. The executing court after remand rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act on 4th August. 2000 and further granted 15 days time to the decree-holder to deposit balance amount of Rs. 23,000 within 15 days, The decree-holder-respondent deposited Rs. 23,000 on 7. The executing court after remand rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act on 4th August. 2000 and further granted 15 days time to the decree-holder to deposit balance amount of Rs. 23,000 within 15 days, The decree-holder-respondent deposited Rs. 23,000 on 7. 8. 2000. ( 4 ) THE question is whether the executing court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was justified in rejecting the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and extending the time to deposit the balance amount to the decree-holder. It is necessary to examine the terms of the decree passed by the trial court on 31. 3. 1998. The operative portion of the decree reads as under :. . (Vernacular Text Deleted ). . "suit No. 1092 of 1995 is decreed with cost for specific performance of agreement dated 8. 7. 1994 and the defendant is directed to execute the sale-deed in respect of Khata No. 513 of khasra No. 326/1 area 3 bigha situate in village Kaila, Pargana Launi, Tahsil and District ghaziabad, within three months of decree, on receiving balance amount of Rs. 23,000 from the plaintiff and get it registered and hand over its actual and physical possession to the plaintiff. " (Translation) ( 5 ) THE decree-holder filed, an application for execution of the decree on 3rd April, 1999, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner did not file objection within three months to the execution application but it was filed on 20th August, 1999 after four months of filing the execution application wherein it was urged that decree-holder was not willing and ready to purchase the property as the balance amount of Rs. 23,000 was not deposited within three months and the execution application was liable to be rejected. He also filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for rescission of the contract on the basis of which the suit was decreed. ( 6 ) THE decree, as referred to above, does not indicate that the decree-holder was to deposit the amount in the Court within specified time. The petitioner, was, however, to execute the sale-deed after receiving balance amount of Rs. 23,000 from the decree-holder-respondent. ( 6 ) THE decree, as referred to above, does not indicate that the decree-holder was to deposit the amount in the Court within specified time. The petitioner, was, however, to execute the sale-deed after receiving balance amount of Rs. 23,000 from the decree-holder-respondent. The petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that he was ready and willing to execute the decree after the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19. 2. 1999. He did not send a notice to respondent No. 3 to execute the sale-deed and pay the balance amount. On the other hand, he preferred review application before the Honble Supreme Court while the execution application was pending. He filed objection to the execution application only after his review application was rejected by the Honble Supreme Court on 15. 7. 1999. It is after four months of the filing of the execution application, he contended that the decree-holder did not deposit the amount within three months. The sale consideration for execution of the sale-deed was Rs. 1,40,000. The petitioner had already received Rs. 1,17,000 and the balance amount of Rs. 23,000 was to be paid. The decree-holder always contested the matter up to the Apex Court which indicated that he was willing to purchase the property and get the sale-deed executed from the petitioner. His economic condition was good and there was nothing to show that he was unable to pay Rs. 23,000. He had filed execution application within two months from the date the special leave petition was dismissed on 19. 2. 1999. ( 7 ) SECTION 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act provides that where in any suit, a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the Court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the Court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the Court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute that the Court has power to extend the time to deposit the amount under the decree for specific performance of contract. In K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. P. S. S. Somesundaram Chettiar, AIR 1980 SC 512 , it was held that even at the stage of appeal before the Supreme Court, the time to make deposit could be extended to enable the plaintiff to get advantage of agreement to sell in favour of the decree-holder. The Court observed : "it is perfectly open to the Court in control of a suit for specific performance to extend time for deposit and this Court may do so even now to enable the plaintiff to get advantage of the agreement to sell in her favour. " ( 9 ) IN Sardar Mohan Singh through Power of Attorney holder, Manjit Singh v. Mangilal alias mangtya, 1997 (9) SCC 217 , the Honble Supreme Court held that lower court has got power to extend time. The Court interpreting subsection (1) of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act observed as under : "from the language of subsection (1) of Section 28, it could be seen that the Court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant of the decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio. The very fact that Section 28 itself gives power to grant order of rescission of the decree would indicate that till the sale-deed is executed in execution of the decree, the trial court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree of specific performance. It would also be clear that the Court has power to enlarge the time in favour of the judgment-debtor to pay the amount to perform the conditions mentioned in the decree for specific performance, in spite of an application for rescission of the decree having been filed by the judgment-debtor and rejected. In other words, the Court has the discretion to extend time for compliance of the conditional decree as mentioned in the decree for specific performance. " ( 10 ) THE Court has still to examine under what circumstances the Court is to extend the time to make deposit by the plaintiff in a decree for specific performance. In other words, the Court has the discretion to extend time for compliance of the conditional decree as mentioned in the decree for specific performance. " ( 10 ) THE Court has still to examine under what circumstances the Court is to extend the time to make deposit by the plaintiff in a decree for specific performance. There is no statutory provision in this respect but the Court has to examine the conduct of the parties, the circumstances under which the decree-holder could not deposit the amount, the intention of the parties and other relevant factors. ( 11 ) THE Court can extend time even in absence of specific application for the purpose. The condition as to the period of payment of purchase money of decree is directory and not mandatory in nature. In Md. Alimuddin v. Waizuddin and another, (1998) 9 SCC 108 , the judgment-debtor filed an application under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the contract. The application was rejected. The trial court while extending the time mentioned that it is at the risk of the plaintiff. Their lordships of the Supreme Court held that the Court having exercised discretion and allowed the decree-holder to deposit the balance consideration amounts to extension of time. ( 12 ) IN Braham Pal Singh v. Xth Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, 1996 (Supp) AWC 588, it was held that there can be no two opinions on the point that provision in Section 28 of the specific Relief Act as to rescission of contract for sale of immovable property in certain circumstances, provides an equitable jurisdiction to the Court. A Court is not obliged in each case to rescind a contract in case the period allowed by the decree to pay purchase money is not adhered to. The condition as to the period of payment of purchase money in a decree for specific performance is directory and not mandatory in nature. It is capable of being extended and the intention of the decree-holder to get the period extended could be inferred in suitable cases by circumstances also, in absence of a specific application for the purpose. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon certain decisions wherein the court did not grant benefit of extending the time for deposit to the decree-holder. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon certain decisions wherein the court did not grant benefit of extending the time for deposit to the decree-holder. In Sunity chandra Bose v. Nil Ratan Sinha, AIR 1985 Cal 282 , the trial court had passed a conditional decree with the default clause that if the plaintiff failed to pay or deposit the amount within 90 days or 120 days of the decree respectively, the defendant would not be liable to execute the deed of sale. The Court took the view that the Court cannot modify the decree by extending the time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. ( 14 ) IN Onkar Nath and another v. Basheer and others, AIR 1986 Punj and Har 152. It was held that if the purchaser falls to pay purchase money as directed by the Court within the prescribed period and does not apply for extension of period, the seller becomes entitled to get the contract rescinded. On the facts. It was found that the judgment-debtors became entitled to get the contract rescinded. In V. S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v. C. Alagappan and another, 1999 (1)CCC 99, the execution application for specific performance was filed after five years of the decree and there was no explanation for non-deposit of the amount nor there was any application seeking extension filed within the time allowed in the decree for deposit of purchase money. On the facts. It was held that extension of time was not permissible. In Parvesh Kumar Gulati v. Darshan Singh Gulati, 1998 (1) CCC 36 (Del), the period of five years passed but no payment was made, it was held that the contract can be rescinded. ( 15 ) AS discussed above, in the present case, the decree-holder respondents cannot be held to be guilty of negligence or having an intention not to perform the decree within the time granted by the Court to pay amount to the judgment-debtor and as such the Court was entitled to extend the time to deposit the amount and not to accept the prayer of the judgment-debtor to rescind the contract in question. The decree-holder had applied for execution of the decree within two months from the date of judgment of Supreme Court passed on 19. 2. 1999. The decree-holder had applied for execution of the decree within two months from the date of judgment of Supreme Court passed on 19. 2. 1999. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Banshidhar Durga Dutta v. Loonkaran Sethia and others, 1983 ALJ 557, has held that the limitation for filing execution application will start from the date the judgment becomes final between the parties in appeal. ( 16 ) IN view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. .