IMPORTANT POINT
If vendee is not ready and willing at all times to perform his part of the agreement, he will not be entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell.

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. “Ease of business” and “enforcement of contract” are the two new buzzwords and rightly so. For ease of doing business insofar as justice delivery is concerned, it is time to introspect and introduce case management programmes to streamline the system so that suits and appeals can be decided more efficiently. The present appeal exemplifies the need for case management system.

3. The subject matter of the appeal is an agreement to sell dated 29th May, 1986. A suit was filed by the plaintiff (Rakesh Kumar) in the Delhi High Court being Suit No.1193 of 1987 for specific performance of the agreement to sell. It appears that due to a change in pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the District Courts and was re-numbered as Suit No.642 of 2001. A disturbing feature of the appeal is that even about 31 years later, the parties are not quite sure about the fate of the agreement to sell entered into in 1986. The period is extremely long and such a lapse of time for the enforcement (or otherwise) of a contract is good reason to re-think the procedures.

4. The appellants (Kalawati and others) are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10th December, 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. No.521 of 2004.

5. In the plaint filed by the respondent (Rakesh Kumar), it was averred that he had entered into an agreement to sell on 29th May, 1986 in respect of land in Rectangle No.81, Killa Nos.21/1 (1-2), 22/1 (4-5), 19/2 (4-0), 19/1 (0-12), 20/2 (1-2) in all measuring 11 bighas and 1 biswa situated in Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. A part of the land was under the absolute ownership/bhumidari of Kalawati while the rest of the land was in the absolute ownership/bhumidari of defendant Nos.2 to 4 (Bishan Prakash, Om Prakash and Ved Prakash).

6. As per the agreement to sell, the sale price of the land in dispute was Rs.1,32,000/-per acre. An amount of Rs.30,000/-was paid by Rakesh Kumar to the defendants as advance payment and part payment towards the sale price for which a receipt was given to him.

7. According to Rakesh Kumar, the defendants were obliged to obtain a certain ‘no objection certificate’ from the appropriate authority for sale of the disputed land and also permissions and clearances but they failed to take any interest in this regard. Accordingly, Rakesh Kumar issued a lawyer’s notice dated 16th May, 1987 to the defendants to carry out their obligations but they failed to do so.

8. Faced with this situation, Rakesh Kumar filed a suit before the High Court being Suit No. 1193 of 1987. As mentioned above, the suit was transferred to the District Courts and renumbered as Suit No.642 of 2001. The prayer in the suit was for specific performance for the agreement to sell dated 29th May, 1986 and for possession of the land in dispute. Along with the plaint, an application was filed by Rakesh Kumar under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure for an injunction against alienation of the land in dispute, in which notice was issued to the defendants therein. Rakesh Kumar was granted an interim injunction subject to his depositing the balance sale consideration for restraining the defendants from alienating the land in dispute. It has come on record that Rakesh Kumar did not deposit the balance sale consideration.

9. At this stage, it may be mentioned that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants transferred the land in dispute in 1995 to defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and that is why the purchasers were impleaded as defendants in the suit.

10. The parties filed their written statements to the plaint and the stand taken by the defendants was that the sale consideration of Rs.1,32,000/-per acre was ridiculously low and illusory. Additionally, Rakesh Kumar himself was not ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and therefore no relief could be granted to him. It was also averred that Rakesh Kumar did not have the necessary