*Ram Lal V. Jarnail Singh (2025 SC)* 1. U/s.28 SRA, the decree of specific performance of an Agreement to Sell is in the nature of a preliminary decree and the trial court retains jurisdiction over it. The court does not become functus officio and has jurisdiction over the decree till the sale deed is executed. 2. O.20 R.12A CPC prescribes that every decree of specific performance of an Agreement to Sell shall prescribe a time limit for the payment of balance consideration. The decreeing court has the power to extend this time limit u/s.28 SRA. 3. In the present case, the trial court gave 2 months time to the plaintiff to pay the balance consideration amount. However, the defendant challenged the decree. The Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and directed specific performance BUT didn’t specify any time limit for payment. The plaintiff filed execution after 2 years and the execution court allowed him to pay balance sale consideration. SC held that if there’s no time limit in the decree, the plaintiff (Decree Holder) shall pay balance consideration amount within reasonable period. (SC asked the plaintiff to pay 9% p.a. interest now). 4. ⁠”This litigation is an eye-opener for the appellate courts reminding that they owe a duty to comply with the provisions of Order XX Rule 12A of the CPC. Where an appeal is filed against the decree passed by the trial court and the appeal is disposed of, the appellate court should specify time to deposit the balance sale consideration. It is too much to say that since the trial court had granted two months time to the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration the same time period would apply even to the decree that may be drawn by the appellate court. What is executable is the decree passed by the appellate court. The appellate court owes a duty to specify the time period.”.