The Supreme Court has clarified that a decree for specific performance cannot be treated as unenforceable solely because of a slight delay in depositing the balance sale consideration—so long as the buyer continues to remain ready and willing to fulfil their obligations under the contract.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra relied on the recent ruling in Ram Lal v. Jarnail Singh (2025), which held that failure to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time does not amount to abandonment of the contract. The key test is whether the buyer’s conduct shows a clear refusal to complete the deal—not merely a technical delay.

Background of the Case

  • In 2004, the buyer agreed to purchase a plot for ₹9.05 lakh.
  • The Trial Court decreed specific performance in 2011, requiring deposit of the balance amount within two months.
  • Although the decree was reversed on first appeal, it was restored in second appeal in 2016, with no fresh time limit mentioned.
  • The buyer filed an execution petition in July 2016, about 87 days after the original two-month period, and deposited substantial amounts in August and December 2016.

The seller objected, arguing the delay showed lack of readiness and willingness. The Executing Court rejected these objections in 2018, but the High Court later held the decree inexecutable due to non-deposit within time.

Supreme Court Findings

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and made three important observations:

✔ Short delay does not kill the decree

The Court held that a minor delay cannot invalidate a decree unless the buyer’s actions clearly show abandonment.

Since the buyer filed an execution petition and deposited the amounts, the Court found continued readiness and willingness.

✔ Doctrine of Merger applies

The Court emphasised that once the High Court restores/affirms a decree:

  • the trial court decree merges into the appellate decree
  • the original time limit does not automatically revive, especially where the appellate court sets no fresh timeline
  • The Court referred to Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh to reinforce this principle.

✔ Technicality should not defeat justice

The Court said a decree should not be declared “dead” due to:

  • marginal delay
  • absence of explicit extension

particularly where equity favours execution.

Final Order

The Supreme Court:

  • allowed the appeal
  • directed the Executing Court to proceed with execution

Title: Dr. Amit Arya v. Kamlesh Kumari (2025)

Why This Judgment Matters

This decision reassures decree-holders that:

  • genuine readiness and willingness will be given priority
  • minor delays won’t defeat specific performance
  • appellate decrees override trial-level timelines

It strengthens equity and prevents abuse of technical objections to avoid contractual obligations.

Download Pdf below

Click to access 35407_2022_11_1503_67133_Judgement_19-Dec-2025.pdf