JUDGMENT : Petitioner by Shri Satish Jain, advocate. Respondent No.1 by Shri Brijesh Pandya, advocate. Heard. Being aggrieved by order dated 26-6-2009 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in CS No.2A/205 whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 under section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was allowed and the petitioner along with respondents No.2 and 3 were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1, present petition has been filed. 2.Short facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No.2 are the sons of respondent No.3.Apart from this, petitioner is the power of attorney holder of respondent No.3.Respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 alleging that on 21-10-2000 respondent No.3 entered into agreement to sell the suit-property i.e.admeasuring 100'xlOO' with respondent No.1.It was alleged that respondent No.3 is not executing the sale deed, hence, the suit filed by respondent No.3 be decreed and petitioner, respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to execute the sale deed.This suit was registered as CS No.2A/2005 and was decreed in compromise vide judgment dated 26-1-2005 whereby respondent No.3 was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 upon payment of consideration.Thereafter, the application was filed by respondent No.1 under section 28(2) of the Specific Relief Act on 11-1-2008 with a prayer to extend the time to execute the sale deed.The application was contested by the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3.After hearing the counsel for the parties at length, learned trial Court allowed the application against which present petition has been filed. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order and the compromise decree are incorrect, illegal and deserve to be set aside. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the land which is to be sold, was not clear in the agreement and also not clear in the compromise decree, learned court below committed error in allowing the application.Learned counsel submits that the application for extension of time was also filed after a long delay of 3 years.It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned court below committed error in allowing the application filed by respondent No.1.It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision in the matter of V.S.Palanichamy Chettiar Firm vs.C.Alagappan, (1999)4 SCC 702 wherein Hon.Apex court has held that in absence of any explanation on the part of respondent decree-holder for omission to deposit the amount within the time granted by the trial Court or to seek from trial Court extension thereof, equity required that the discretion of the Court under section 28 to extend the time for payment should not be exercised in favour of the respondent decree-holder.Hon.Apex Court has held that he who seeks equity must do equity. 6.Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd.vs.Haridas Mundhra, (1972) 3 SCC 684 wherein no time was fixed for rescission of contract, Hon.Apex Court held that the same can be rescinded on default within reasonable time.It is submitted that petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 7.Shri Brijesh Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner has no locus standi.It is submitted that the petitioner is acting as power of attorney of respondent No.3, who is none else but father of the petitioner.It is submitted that validity of the compromise decree was challenged by respondent No.3 in the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 under section 28(2) of the Specific Relief Act, which was opposed by respondent No.1 and objections filed by respondent No.3 were dismissed against which respondent No.3 has initiated proceedings.Learned counsel has further submitted that petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.7 lakhs initially and thereafter, deposited a sum of Rs.10,54,750.00.It is submitted that entire amount was withdrawn by respondent No.3 in the year 2009.It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same be dismissed. 28.Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed - (1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the 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. (2) Where a contract is rescinded under sub-section (1), the court- (a) shall direct the purchaser or the lessee, if he has obtained possession of the property under the contract, to restore such possession to the vendor or lessor, and (b) may direct payment to the vendor or lessor of all the rents and profits which have accrued in respect of the property from the date on which possession was so obtained by the purchaser or lessee until restoration of possession to the vendor or lessor, and if the justice of the case so requires, the refund of any sum paid by the vendee or lessee as earnest money or deposit in connection with the contract. (3) If the purchaser or lessee pays the purchase money or other sum which he is ordered to pay under the decree within the period referred to in sub-section (1), the court may, on application made in the same suit, award the purchaser or lessee such further relief as he may be entitled to, including in appropriate cases all or any of the following reliefs, namely:- (a) the execution of a proper conveyance or lease by the vendor or lessor; (b) the delivery of possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property on the execution of such conveyance or lease. (4) No separate suit in respect of any relief which may be claimed under this section shall lie at the instance of a vendor, purchaser, lessor or lessee, as the case may be. (4) No separate suit in respect of any relief which may be claimed under this section shall lie at the instance of a vendor, purchaser, lessor or lessee, as the case may be. (5) The costs of any proceedings under this section shall be in the discretion of the court. 8.Agreement which took place between the parties was for a piece of land admeasuring 100'xl00'.The compromise decree which was passed on 20-1-2005 is silent about the area. This decree is also silent about the period when the respondent No.1 was required to make payment and when the sale deed was required to be executed. The application was filed by the respondent No.1 on 11-1-2008 for extension of time. In the said proceedings learned Court below has also taken into consideration the Commissioner's report which was submitted in the original proceedings and held that sale deed is required to be executed for a piece of land measuring 9,100 Sqft. Instead of 10,000 sqft. of land Learned trial court has also observed that the amount of Rs.10,54,750.00 deposited by respondent No.1 in addition to Rs.7 lacs has been withdrawn by respondent No.3.The objection filed by respondent No.3 was also dismissed. The order passed against respondent No.3 whereby the objection raised were dismissed has not been challenged by respondent No.3.The petitioner is merely acting as power of attorney of respondent No.3.If the objection raised by respondent No.3 has been dismissed who entered into agreement to sell the suit property then the petitioner is having no locus standi to file petition because as per decree for which time is extended it is respondent No.3 who has to execute the sale deed. 9.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.