Specific performance decree control: rescission cannot rest on delayed payment alone without a clear default or refusal to perform.

Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act does not permit rescission of a decree for specific performance merely because the balance consideration was not deposited within the period mentioned for execution of the decree, where the decree itself fixed no payment deadline and no default clause. The Court retains control over the decree, may extend time, and can order rescission only on a clear default or refusal to perform. Delay by the decree holder was not shown to amount to positive non-compliance, especially where substantial payments had already been made and the other side had delayed for years. A later rise in property value could not justify rescission.

---

---

Issues: Whether the agreement dated 16.8.1980 was liable to be rescinded under section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 on the ground that the decree holder had not deposited the balance premium or rent within the period mentioned in the decree for specific performance.

Analysis: The decree for specific performance did not fix any time limit for payment of the balance premium and did not contain any default clause. It only directed execution of the lease within 90 days, and the Court held that no implicit obligation could be read into the decree requiring deposit of the balance amount within that period. Section 28 preserves the Court's control over a decree for specific performance and permits rescission where the decree holder is shown to be in default, but the facts here showed no positive refusal to complete the transaction. The decree holder had already been in possession under the earlier assignment, had deposited substantial amounts over time, and the trustees had delayed for years before seeking rescission. The Court also held that the later increase in property value could not justify rescission of the earlier agreement.

Conclusion: The agreement was not liable to be rescinded under section 28(1), and the order rescinding it and recalling the decree could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: In a decree for specific performance, where no time limit or default consequence is fixed for payment of the balance consideration, rescission under section 28(1) cannot be ordered merely because payment was not made within the period for execution of the decree; the Court must find a clear default or refusal to perform, and it retains jurisdiction to extend time and enforce the decree.

---