In a judgment that cut through years of procedural wrangling, the Supreme Court of India has restored the execution of a decree directing the sale of a Panchkula property, holding that a short delay in depositing money cannot, by itself, kill a lawful contract. The Bench made it clear that courts should not take a hyper-technical view when the buyer’s intent to complete the deal is otherwise evident.
Background
The dispute dates back more than two decades. In December 2004, Dr. Amit Arya entered into an agreement to purchase a small plot in Kalka, Panchkula, from Kamlesh Kumari. An advance of ₹1 lakh was paid, but the sale deed never materialised.
Read also:- Supreme Court settles long-running tax dispute on non-compete fees, clarifies capital natur
Dr. Arya approached the civil court seeking specific performance-in simple terms, a court order forcing completion of the promised sale. In 2011, the trial court ruled in his favour, directing the seller to execute the sale deed on receipt of the remaining amount within two months. That decree survived the first appeal and was eventually restored by the High Court in second appeal.
The trouble started at the execution stage. Though Dr. Arya filed the execution petition, there was a delay of about 27 days beyond the two-month period in depositing the full balance consideration. On this ground, the High Court later held the decree to be “inexecutable,” effectively stalling the sale.
Read also:- Supreme Court steps in on Rajasthan village naming row, restores single judge order quashing Amargarh and Sagatsar notifications over policy
Court’s Observations
Hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court took a noticeably practical tone. The Bench noted that the law itself allows courts to extend time for compliance in such cases. Referring to earlier rulings, the judges underlined that delay alone does not mean a buyer has abandoned the contract.
“The real test,” the Bench observed, “is whether the conduct of the buyer shows a positive refusal to complete his part of the bargain.”
Here, the courts below had already found that Dr. Arya was ready and willing to go ahead with the sale. The Supreme Court said treating a 27-day delay as fatal would be a classic example of an overly rigid approach-something courts are expected to avoid.
The Bench also addressed the confusion around the “merger” of decrees. Once the High Court had finally decided the second appeal on merits, only that final decree survived in law. Interpreting the original two-month timeline in isolation, the Court said, was legally flawed.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court’s Arrest Shield, Says No Blanket Protection While Probe Continues in Arms Licence Forgery Case
Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court restored the executing court’s decision that had rejected the seller’s objections. The Court directed that execution proceedings should continue and the decree for specific performance be carried out in accordance with law. With this, the long-pending land deal is finally back on track, closing the chapter at the stage of execution itself.
Case Title: Dr. Amit Arya v. Kamlesh Kumari
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 20091 of 2022
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Specific Performance / Execution of Decree)
Decision Date: 19 December 2025
