JUDGMENT : MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J. 1. This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Ext. P6 order dated 13.04.2018 in I.A. No.1277 of 2018 in O.S. No.11 of 2016 on the files of the Court of the Subordinate Judge (Addl.), Palakkad. 2. The suit was filed by the petitioners herein for specific performance of contract with alternate prayer for return of advance amount. The trial court set the respondents/defendants ex parte and decreed the suit on 11.08.2017 as following: “1) The plaintiff is directed to deposit balance sale consideration within 3 months from today and give notice thereafter defendants. 2) On receipt of the notice on deposit the defendants shall assign the property to the plaintiff at their expense and also hand over possession to the plaintiffs. Thereupon defendants are entitled to receive balance consideration deposited in the Court after adjusting the cost of the suit allowed to the plaintiffs. 3) If the defendants failed to assign property within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice as stated above. The plaintiffs can apply to the Court for assigning the property and possession thereof through Court. 4) Plaintiffs are entitled to realise the costs of the suit and adjusted in the amount ordered to be deposited.” 3. The copy of the ex parte decree in O.S. No.11 of 2016 is marked as Ext. P1 in the original petition and Ext. P2 is the copy of the judgment. The petitioners could not deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.23,89,500/- within the time stipulated in the decree. Therefore, they filed I.A. No.3039 of 2017 (Ext. P3) under Sections 148 , 149 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for extending the time to deposit the balance sale consideration for a further period of two months. In Ext. P3, it was urged that the petitioners came to know that the balance sale consideration has to be deposited within three months only when they received the copy of the decree and judgment on 21.10.2017 and practically 70 days had been lost during the pendency of the copy application and they got hardly 20 days to deposit the amount which was quite inadequate. 4. The trial court issued notice in Ext. P3 application. Since the service could not be effected as the addressee had left, substituted service was taken by affixture. 4. The trial court issued notice in Ext. P3 application. Since the service could not be effected as the addressee had left, substituted service was taken by affixture. The respondents were called absent on 09.04.2018. The trial court passed Ext.P4 order which reads as follows: “Petition filed Under Section 148 , 149 & 151 of the CPC. 2. R1 and R2 called absent. This petition is filed for extending 2 months time from 11.11.2017. In fact that time extended by 11.01.2018. Now considering the fact the process was not complete. I find that time can be granted to 3 days from today. Hence, make deposit with in 3 days. Post to 13.04.2018.” In Ext. P4, the trial court observed that the period sought for in the petition had actually expired on 11.01.2018. However, considering the fact that the process was not complete, 3 days’ more time was granted for depositing the balance sale consideration and the case was posted to 13.04.2018. In the meantime, on 12.04.2018, the petitioners filed I.A. No.1277 of 2018 (Ext. P5) in I.A. No.3039 of 2017 under Sections 148 , 149 and 151 of the CPC seeking two weeks’ further time from 12.04.2018 for depositing the amount. In the affidavit accompanying the said application, as sworn to by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, it was stated that despite his best efforts, he could not communicate Ext. P4 order to the petitioner on the very same day since he was in China in connection with his business. The learned Sub Judge dismissed Ext. P5 application by Ext. P6 order and the operative portion of the order reads as thus: “There are 2 plaintiffs in the above suit. An exparte decree for specific performance was obtained by plaintiff on 11.08.2017. As per that decree, three months time was granted for depositing the balance considerations. A decree for specific performance was granted as it was proved that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The reasons stated in the petition for extending the time shows that petitioners are blaming the time taken for obtaining copy application. There is no case for the petitioners that due to any personal difficulties or due to sudden or urgent situations they are not able to raise sufficient funds to deposit the balance considerations. The reasons stated in the petition for extending the time shows that petitioners are blaming the time taken for obtaining copy application. There is no case for the petitioners that due to any personal difficulties or due to sudden or urgent situations they are not able to raise sufficient funds to deposit the balance considerations. The petitioners cannot escape from discharging the duty to deposit the balance consideration within the period directed from the decree on the ground that 70 days of time was taken for obtaining certified copy of the judgment. It is also an admitted fact even after obtaining certified copy, there was 20 days time for payment of balance consideration. Another important aspect is that petitioner filed I.A. No.3039/2017 on 8.11.2017 seeking two months time to pay the balance consideration. But, till 9.04.2018, there was no deposit made and accordingly, that I.A. was closed by granting time till 13.04.2018. Today also petitioner filed this application for enlarging time. In I.A. No.3039/2017 there is no case of financial difficulties for the petitioner as averred in this petition. In that application also it was only contended that there was time taken for receiving certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner intended to blame the Court rather than explaining his difficulties and stating reasons for the default committed by him. In this case, there is no reason to extend any further period for payment of balance considerations. It was well settled that the readiness and willingness must be there from the date of contract till the date of decree and even thereafter. So, I find that there is no ground to extent any further time. In the result, the above petition is dismissed without costs.” 5. According to the petitioners, the trial court had allowed Ext. P3 application for enlargement of time to deposit the balance sale consideration though the period actually sought had expired. Ext. P5 application for further extension has been dismissed after evaluating the merits of the contentions in Ext. P3 application. According to them, the trial court, having accepted the reasons stated in Ext. P3 and allowed the application, cannot, now, reject Ext. P5 application for further extension of time as per Ext. P6. Accordingly, this original petition is filed to set aside Ext. P6 order, and to allow Ext. P3 application. According to them, the trial court, having accepted the reasons stated in Ext. P3 and allowed the application, cannot, now, reject Ext. P5 application for further extension of time as per Ext. P6. Accordingly, this original petition is filed to set aside Ext. P6 order, and to allow Ext. P5 interlocutory application and to permit the petitioners to deposit the balance sale consideration as per Ext. P1 decree within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 6. Heard Adv. P.R.Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Though notice was served to the respondents by affixture through the District Court, Palakkad, there is no appearance for them. 7. Sri. Venkatesh, would contend that the trial court has sufficient powers under Sections 148 , 149 and 151 of the CPC and under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to extend the time for deposit of balance sale consideration as per Ext. P1 decree. Though the trial court by Ext. P4 extended the time for deposit by three days, Ext. P5 application filed for further extension of time by two weeks was rejected after evaluating the merits of the contentions in Ext. P3 application. Sri.Venkatesh relied on the decision in Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das , AIR 1961 SC 882 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope and applicability of Sections 148 , 149 and 151 of the CPC, while dealing with an application for extension of time towards the payment of court fee. The Apex Court held that if sufficient cause has been made, the court is clothed with ample powers under Sections 148 and 149 and under the inherent powers under Section 151 to do justice to a litigant where failure is not due to any fault of the litigant. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara , 1994 (1) KLT 453 (SC) : (1994) 2 SCC 642 was relied on to contend that application for extension of time to make payment of balance sale consideration under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can be filed in the court of first instance or even before the Appellate Court. Sri. Venkatesh also placed reliance on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v . Sri. Venkatesh also placed reliance on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v . Jarnail Singh, 2025 KHC 6207 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1607 (SC) and contended that under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, the court has the discretion to extend the time for payment of balance sale consideration and the provision is meant to provide complete relief to both the parties in terms of the decree for specific performance. It is contended that the petitioners were always willing to deposit the balance sale consideration and they could not deposit the amount within the stipulated time due to reasons beyond their control. It is contended that the trial court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by rejecting Ext. P5 application of the petitioners for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are willing to pay the balance sale consideration within a time to be stipulated by this Court. 8. The original suit was filed seeking a decree for specific performance directing the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners after accepting the balance sale consideration and to hand over them possession of the property. The trial court passed Ext. P1 decree directing the petitioners to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.23,89,500/- within three months from the date of the decree and give notice thereafter to the respondents and to assign the property to the petitioners. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was not challenged by the respondents in appeal. The petitioners failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated in Ext. P1. According to them, they received the certified copy of the judgment only on 21.10.2017 and 70 days’ time was lost during the pendency of the copy application and they did not get sufficient time for depositing the balance sale consideration. They filed Ext. P3 application for extension of time and time was granted as per Ext. P4 till 12.04.2018. As per the affidavit sworn to by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, he could not communicate the order to the petitioners. So the balance sale consideration was not deposited within the extended time. Accordingly, Ext. P5 interlocutory application was filed for further extension of time by two weeks. P4 till 12.04.2018. As per the affidavit sworn to by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, he could not communicate the order to the petitioners. So the balance sale consideration was not deposited within the extended time. Accordingly, Ext. P5 interlocutory application was filed for further extension of time by two weeks. The trial court dismissed the application stating that the petitioners have failed to explain the difficulties to raise the funds to deposit the balance sale consideration and instead, they intended to blame the court stating that they received the copy of the judgment belatedly. The trial court observed that no plea of financial difficulties was raised in the application for extension of time. The court also observed that readiness and willingness must be there from the date of the contract till the date of decree and even thereafter. Accordingly, the trial court found that there is no ground to extend the time any further. 9. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahanth Ram Das (supra), the court has ample powers under Sections 148 , 149 and 151 of the CPC to enlarge the time for making deposits even in cases of conditional decree. In Ramankutty Guptan (supra), it was held that an application for extension of time to make payment of balance sale consideration under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can be filed in the court of first instance or even before the Appellate Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “Therefore, it is clear that the decree of the appellate court would be construed to be the decree passed by the Court of first instance. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of the suit. Therefore, when a decree for specific performance has been dismissed by the trial court, but decreed by the appellate court, it should be construed to be in the same suit. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of the suit. Therefore, when a decree for specific performance has been dismissed by the trial court, but decreed by the appellate court, it should be construed to be in the same suit. When the decree specifies the time for performance of the conditions of the decree, on its failure to deposit the money, S. 28(1) itself gives power to the court to extend the time on such terms as the court may allow to pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay...........It is to be seen that the procedure is the handmaid for justice; and unless the procedure touches upon jurisdictional issue, it should be moulded to subserve substantial justice. Therefore, technicalities would not stand in the way to subserve substantive justice.” 10. In Ishwar (Since Deceased) through LRs. v . Bhim Singh , 2024 KHC 6473 : 2024 (5) KLT 390 : AIR 2024 SC 4232 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an application seeking extension of time, under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, must be decided as an application in the original suit wherein the decree was passed even though the suit has been disposed of. In Ram Lal (supra), it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the court does not become functus officio after the grant of the decree for specific performance and it retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree till the sale deed is executed and the court has discretion to extend the time for payment of balance sale consideration. It was further held therein that the power and jurisdiction granted under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act enables the court to extend the period for payment of the purchase money if it has not been paid within the period allowed by the decree. In paragraphs 44 to 49 of the said judgment, the court observed as follows: “44. The decree for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree. Both the parties have reciprocal rights and obligations flowing out of the decree. The decree may fix the time limit for performance and in some cases may also provide for the consequence for non-performance within the time limit or the decree may even be silent on this aspect. 45. Both the parties have reciprocal rights and obligations flowing out of the decree. The decree may fix the time limit for performance and in some cases may also provide for the consequence for non-performance within the time limit or the decree may even be silent on this aspect. 45. The decree enforces specific performance of the contract. The contract between the parties is thus not extinguished by passing of a decree for specific performance and it subsists despite the decree. Section 28 (1) of the Act, makes it clear that the Court does not become a functus officio after the grant of the decree for specific performance and it retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree till the sale deed is executed. 46. The Court has been conferred with the power to extend the time to pay the amount and while taking into consideration the delay that is sought to be condoned by the plaintiff, the Court does not adjudge the same like an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, where each day's delay must be explained. The Court is given the discretion to extend the time and the provision therefore seeks to provide complete relief to both the parties in terms of the decree for specific performance. 47. The power and jurisdiction granted under Section 28 (1) of the Act, enables the Court to extend the period for payment of the purchase money if it has not been paid within the period allowed by the decree. It also enables the judgment debtor to seek for rescinding the contract for non-compliance of the directions given in the decree and while considering this application, the Court is given the discretion to rescind the contract or in an appropriate case to even extend the time for paying the purchase money. 48. It should also be borne in mind that appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and the power of the Court to extend the time for depositing the amount can be exercised even in the appellate stage by the Court. 49. In the considered view of this Court, the Appellate Court, after deciding the appeal on merits, could have called upon the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration by fixing a time limit. This would have at least given an opportunity to the plaintiff to fulfil his obligation. 49. In the considered view of this Court, the Appellate Court, after deciding the appeal on merits, could have called upon the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration by fixing a time limit. This would have at least given an opportunity to the plaintiff to fulfil his obligation. The non-payment of the balance sale consideration within the time period fixed by the Trial Court does not amount to abandonment of the contract and consequent rescinding of the same. The real test must be to see if the conduct of the plaintiff will amount to a positive refusal to complete his part of the contract. There must be an element of wilful negligence on the part of the plaintiff before a Court proceeds to invoke Section 28 of the Act and rescind the contract.” As held by the Apex Court, the decree for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree. Section 28 (1) empowers the court to extend the time for payment of amount under a decree. The court is given the discretion to extend the time for paying the purchase money. However, the real test must be to see if the conduct of the plaintiff amounts to a positive refusal to complete his part of the contract. The court must see whether there is an element of wilful negligence on the part of the plaintiffs in not paying the purchase money within the period stipulated in the decree. 11. It is to be noted that the reason stated by the petitioners for extension of time in Ext. P3 application that they did not get sufficient time to pay the balance sale consideration after receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and decree was accepted by the trial court and the time was extended till 12.04.2018 as per Ext. P4 order. However, when they sought for further time for payment of balance sale consideration by Ext. P5 application, the same was dismissed after evaluating the merits of the contentions in Ext. P3 application. When the trial court initially allowed Ext. P3 application and granted time, it is to be presumed that the court has accepted the reasons stated therein for extension of time. However, in Ext. P5 application, the same was dismissed after evaluating the merits of the contentions in Ext. P3 application. When the trial court initially allowed Ext. P3 application and granted time, it is to be presumed that the court has accepted the reasons stated therein for extension of time. However, in Ext. P6 order, the trial court has stated that the reason stated in the petition for extension of time shows that the petitioners are blaming the time taken for obtaining the copy of the judgment. That was the reason stated in Ext. P3 application. At the time of passing Ext. P4 order, the trial court did not doubt the bona fides of the reasons stated in Ext. P3 and granted extension of time. Further extension of time was sought for since the counsel could not communicate Ext. P4 order to the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners had sworn to an affidavit stating that he could not communicate Ext. P4 order to the petitioners as they were not in station. Only two weeks time was sought for from 12.04.2018 for depositing the balance sale consideration. In Ext. P5 application, sufficient and plausible grounds have been made out for extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration. 12. In Ext. P6 order, the trial court has stated that the petitioners have no case that they could not raise sufficient funds to deposit the balance sale consideration. It also observed that no plea of financial difficulties was raised in the application for extension of time. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in inferring a lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the petitioners to conclude the contract. From the over all conduct of the petitioners it cannot be said that there was wilful negligence on their part in paying the balance sale consideration within the period stipulated in the decree and within the extended time granted by the trial court. The trial court ought to have exercised the discretion and allowed Ext. P5 application and granted extension of time for payment of balance sale consideration. Accordingly, Ext. P6 order is set aside. The original petition has been pending before this Court for nearly seven years. The respondents are entitled to interest on the balance sale consideration. The petitioners shall deposit the balance sale consideration as per Ext. P5 application and granted extension of time for payment of balance sale consideration. Accordingly, Ext. P6 order is set aside. The original petition has been pending before this Court for nearly seven years. The respondents are entitled to interest on the balance sale consideration. The petitioners shall deposit the balance sale consideration as per Ext. P1 decree with 9% interest per annum from 13.04.2018 till the date of deposit, within one month from the date of this judgment. The original petition is allowed.