ORDER : 1. The short question involved in this revision is, whether the executing court is justified in holding that the agreement to sale of immovable property dated 8-3-2008, which culminated into decree for specific performance of contract, has rescinded in terms of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the applicant/decree holder is not entitled for any relief, by rejecting his application and granting the application filed by non-applicant No.1 herein/judgment debtor? 2. The aforesaid question arises in the following factual backdrop: - 2.1) The civil suit filed by the applicant herein/plaintiff on 21-4-2009 claiming specific performance of contract pursuant to the agreement to sale dated 8-3-2008 in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.452, area 0.310 hectare, situate at Village Anjora, District Durg was decreed on 31-7-2010 vide Annexure A-2 with a stipulation that defendant No.1/non-applicant No.1 herein will execute the sale deed after obtaining Rs. 16 lakhs and after demarcation of the suit land, in favour of the plaintiff and with two other conditions. The first application for execution was filed on 2-11-2010 which was not duly constituted and fresh application was filed on 13-2-2015 vide Annexure A-3. During the pendency of the application for execution, the applicant herein has filed an application before the executing court stating inter alia that he is ready with an amount of Rs. 16 lakhs and he has also filed the statement of account that he has Rs. 16 lakhs with him and sought a direction for demarcation of land as per the decree of the trial Court and during the pendency of that application, after almost two years on 21-3-2018, the judgment debtor/non-applicant No.1 herein has also filed an application for dismissal of execution case on the ground that the applicant herein/decree holder has not deposited the amount and not complied with the decree and therefore decree be rescinded. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 5-9-2018, the executing court has dismissed the application of the decree holder/applicant herein on the ground of delay by holding that the decree holder has failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 16 lakhs as per the decree dated 31-7-2010 which has been sought to be challenged by way of this revision and granted the application filed by judgment debtor. 3. Mr. 16 lakhs as per the decree dated 31-7-2010 which has been sought to be challenged by way of this revision and granted the application filed by judgment debtor. 3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/decree holder, would submit that the executing court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application of the applicant herein/decree holder, as the decree holder is having the amount and is ready and willing to pay the amount, but since the land has not been demarcated by the judgment debtor as directed by the trial Court, he could not pay the amount, as the judgment debtor is entitled for the amount only after demarcation of land and in fact, the application for direction for demarcation of land is the application for extension of the decree to direct the judgment debtor to get the land demarcated and for the plaintiff to deposit the decretal amount, as such, the executing court has committed illegality/acted with material irregularity in rejecting the application which deserves to be allowed. He would further submit that the application of the applicant/decree holder dated 23-8-2016 has to be accepted as the application for extension of time to both the parties and even no written application is required for extension of time as the condition precedent for the court to grant extension of time and it can be oral. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the matter of Chithambaran Ponnappan v. Viswambaran and another, AIR 2001 Ker 205 in support of his contention. 4. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel appearing for non-applicants No.1 & 2/judgment debtor, would submit that the executing court is absolutely justified in rejecting the application of the applicant herein/decree holder, as the decree holder has not complied with the conditions incorporated in the decree as payment of Rs. 16 lakhs was the condition precedent for getting the land demarcated and unless the decretal amount of Rs. 16 lakhs is paid, the judgment debtor was not obliged to get the land demarcated. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chanda (dead) Through LRs v. Rattni and another, (2007) 14 SCC 26 to buttress his submission. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record carefully and thoroughly as well. 6. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chanda (dead) Through LRs v. Rattni and another, (2007) 14 SCC 26 to buttress his submission. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record carefully and thoroughly as well. 6. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with rescission of contracts for sale of immovable property in certain circumstances when already specific performance has been decreed by the trial Court and states as under: - “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 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. (5) The costs of any proceedings under this section shall be in the discretion of the court.” 7. The power exercisable under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is discretionary and it has to be exercised keeping in view the following parameters (see Sarkar Specific Relief Act, 18th Edition, page 471): - “1) The decree for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree.[ Kumar Dhirendra Mullick v Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd, (2005) 9 SCC 262 : (2004) 9 Scale 184 .] It is a decree in favour of both the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit. Both parties have reciprocal rights and obligations flowing therefrom the purchaser/lessee to have the deed executed in his favour upon payment of the consideration and the vendor/lessor to receive the consideration and execute the deed and hand over possession.[ Kedarnath v Jai Narain, AIR 1954 Pat 497 : (1955) 3 BLJR 68 affirmed Jai Narain v Kedarnath, AIR 1956 SC 359 : 1956 SCC 169 : (1956) 1 SCR 62.] Under O XX, rule 12A of the CPC, in every decree of specific performance of a contract, the court has to specify the period within which the payment has to be made. 2) The decree enforces specific performance of the contract. The contract between the parties is thus not extinguished by the passing of a decree for specific performance. 2) The decree enforces specific performance of the contract. The contract between the parties is thus not extinguished by the passing of a decree for specific performance. As the contract subsists despite the decree, it must be presumed that the parties to the decree have the obligation to complete the contract within a reasonable time even if the decree is silent as to the time for performance/payment.[ Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd v Haridas Mundhra, AIR 1972 SC 1826 : (1972) 3 SCC 684 ] 3) It is clear from section 28(1) that the court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant of the decree for specific performance nor does it becomes functus officio. The court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree till the sale deed is executed in execution of the decree. The court has the power to extend the time to pay the amount or comply with performance of the conditions despite the pendency of the application for rescission.[Bhupinder Kumar v Angrej Singh, (2009) 8 SCC 766 : (2009) 12 Scale 4 ; Vatsala S Bansole v Sambhaji N Khandare, AIR 2003 Bom 57 : (2002) 6 Bom CR 126] 4) The court has the discretion to extend time for compliance of the conditional decree as mentioned in the decree for specific performance even if the respondent has not given satisfactory explanation of every day's delay. An application for extension of time will not be adjudged like an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 where each day’s delay may have to be explained.[ Sardar Mohar Singh v Mangilal, AIR 1997 SCW 1152 : (1997) 9 SCC 217 : (1997) 1 Scale 611 .] 4) The court has the discretion to extend the time upon an application made by the party required to act within a stipulated time period. Extension of time can be granted even after the expiry of the period originally fixed.[ PR Yelumalai v NM Ravi, (2015) 9 SCC 52 : (2015) 4 Scale 322 ; Johri Singh v Sukh Pal Singh, AIR 1989 SC 2073 : (1989) 4 SCC 403 .] (see Note [s 28.8], post) 5) If the purchaser/lessee does not comply with the time fixed for deposit by the decree or within reasonable time when the decree is silent on time for deposit and also does not comply even within the extended time, if any granted for making the deposit by the court, the vendor/lessor has the right to move the court in the same suit for rescinding the contract and in the absence of satisfactory explanation and on a consideration of all attendant circumstances, if the court finds that the purchaser/lessee has not acted in a reasonable manner under the contract, equity demands that the court adjudge rescission of the contract and the decree thereon.[ VS Palanichamy Chettiar Firm v C Alagappan, AIR 1999 SC 918 : (1999) 4 SCC 702 .]” 8. Thus, from the aforesaid legal position, it is quite vivid that when the court passes the decree for specific performance of the contract, the contract between the parties is not extinguished and the decree for specific performance is in the nature of preliminary decree and the suit is deemed to be pending even after the decree by virtue of Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant of the decree for specific performance nor does it become functus officio. Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act confers power to grant order of rescission of the agreement which itself indicates that till the sale deed is executed, the trial court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree of specific performance. Therefore, the court has the power to extend the time to pay the decretal amount or to perform the conditions mentioned in the decree for specific performance, despite the application for rescission of the agreement/decree. (See Sardar Mohar Singh case.) 9. Therefore, the court has the power to extend the time to pay the decretal amount or to perform the conditions mentioned in the decree for specific performance, despite the application for rescission of the agreement/decree. (See Sardar Mohar Singh case.) 9. The principle of law laid down in Sardar Mohar Singh (supra) was followed with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kumar Dhirendra Mullick case3 and further followed in Bhupinder Kumar case6 wherein it has been observed in paragraphs 21, 22 & 25 as under: - “21. It is clear that Section 28 gives power to the court either to extend the time for compliance with the decree or grant an order of rescission of the agreement. These powers are available to the trial court which passes the decree of specific performance. In other words, when the court passes the decree for specific performance, the contract between the parties is not extinguished. To put it clearly the decree for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree and the suit is deemed to be pending even after the decree. 22. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 makes it clear that the court does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant of decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio. On the other hand, Section 28 gives power to the court to grant an order of rescission of the agreement and it has the power to extend the time to pay the amount or perform the conditions of decree for specific performance despite the application for rescission of the agreement/decree. In deciding an application under Section 28(1) of the Act, the court has to see all the attending circumstances including the conduct of the parties. 23. As discussed earlier, though the court has the power and discretion to extend the time for fulfilment of the contract, in the case on hand, there is neither any material to show that the appellant was having the required money nor had he tendered or deposited the same as per the terms of the decree. Both the executing court and the High Court found that there was no just and reasonable cause to extend the time for depositing the balance consideration.” 10. Both the executing court and the High Court found that there was no just and reasonable cause to extend the time for depositing the balance consideration.” 10. Returning to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid legal position emerging from the decisions of the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to notice the decree which the trial Court has passed on 31-7-2010 and which states as under: - 1& izfroknh dz01] oknh ls 'ks"k jde lksyg yk[k :i;s izkIr dj xzke vatksjk i-g-ua-5 [kljk ua-452 jdck 0-310 dk lhekadu i'pkr fodz;i= oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr djsA 2& oknh fodz;i= dk jftLVsª'ku ,DV ds vuq:i iath;u [kpZ vnk djsxkA 3& izfroknhuh dz01 }kjk rhu ekg ds Hkhrj iath;u oknh ds i{k esa u djkus dh n'kk esa oknh U;k;ky; esa izfr0dz01 dks 'ks"k lksyg yk[k :i;s vnk djus ds fy;s tek djkus ij U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls fodz;i= fu"ikfnr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 11. A careful perusal of the decree would show that the trial Court has directed defendant No.1 to get the subject land demarcated after obtaining Rs. 16 lakhs to get the same land demarcated and sale deed has to be registered in favour of the plaintiff. In this case, execution was pending since 2-11-2010, as the first application was dismissed on 10-7-2014 for the technical reason that it was not duly constituted and in the meanwhile, second application was filed on 13-2-2015 in which the plaintiff/decree holder has filed application on 23-8-2016 seeking a direction from the executing court to defendant No.1/judgment debtor for demarcation of land stating that he has Rs. 16 lakhs with him in support of which he has filed the copy of the statement of account. According to the bank statement issued by HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch: Durg, Mr. Goutam Chand Bothra i.e. the applicant herein/plaintiff/decree holder was having closing balance of Rs. 16,10,442-48 ps. in his account as on 27-7-2016. This application was filed by the plaintiff/decree holder on 23-8-2016 and thereafter, with a delay of two years on 21-3-2018, the judgment debtor has filed an application for rejecting the execution case/application on the ground that the plaintiff/decree holder has not deposited the decretal amount in right time and the time stipulated in the decree has already expired which the executing court has entertained. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis, it is quite vivid that though the decree is of 31-7-2010 and the execution was pending since 2-11-2010 with a repeat application for execution on 13-2-2015, but the judgment debtor did not file application for rescission of the contract/decree and only when the plaintiff/decree holder has filed application for direction to defendant No.1 to get the subject land demarcated as per the decree of the trial Court, the judgment debtor has filed application for dismissal of the execution application/case with a delay of more than 1½ years. The plaintiff/decree holder has filed document along with application dated 23-8-2016 which is statement of account stating that he is having Rs. 16 lakhs with him in his bank account. It is apparent that there is serious dispute as to demarcation of land and that is the reason why the trial Court has recorded that demarcation is necessary before execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder. Though the plaintiff was required to make payment of Rs. 16 lakhs to get the land demarcated for enabling the judgment debtor to get the process for demarcation done, but the fact remains that the decree is dated 31-7-2010, however, the judgment debtor has not taken steps to get the subject land demarcated and unless the land is demarcated, decree cannot be executed for which the judgment debtor is responsible and the plaintiff is having money for the purpose as shown in the statement of account. In that view of the matter, the executing court having power to extend the period for depositing the said amount could have directed the plaintiff/decree holder to deposit the amount as the decree holder is already having amount with him and further could have directed the defendant/judgment debtor to get the land demarcated in view of the decree dated 31-7-2010, in the interest of justice. The court was required to exercise the discretion in this case to extend the time, as the confusion occurred on account of the fact that the judgment debtor has not taken steps for demarcation of the suit land. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the executing court dated 5-9-2018 granting the application filed by the judgment debtor and rejecting the application filed by the decree holder, is set aside. The application of the decree holder is allowed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the executing court dated 5-9-2018 granting the application filed by the judgment debtor and rejecting the application filed by the decree holder, is set aside. The application of the decree holder is allowed. It is directed that the plaintiff/decree holder will deposit Rs. 16 lakhs within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the executing court and within next 30 days, defendant No.1 will get the land demarcated for the purpose of facilitating the registration of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. On that being done, the trial Court will proceed in accordance with law. The civil revision is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).