Timeliness for specific performance claims is determined by the parties' conduct, not merely fixed contractual deadlines, enabling a nuanced evaluation of obligations.

ORDER :

R. Devdas, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.1 before the Trial Court, aggrieved of the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, whereby the interlocutory application filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was rejected by the trial court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for defendant No.1 submitted that this Court had an occasion to consider a similar matter between the parties in CMP No.75/2020 , where similar such MoU was entered into between the parties on 04.02.2011 (in the present case the MoU is dated 14.02.2011) in respect of different set of lands. As in the present case, there too a legal notice was got issued by the plaintiff on 13.11.2019 calling upon the defendant to specifically perform and complete all obligations under the MoU, failing which the defendant was called upon to refund the amount deposited by the plaintiff under the MoU, along with interest. In the present case, legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 18.09.2019 and the 1^st defendant issued a reply on 03.10.2019 denying any obligation of specific performance arising out of the MoU, while contending that said MoU does not create any legal obligation on the 1^st defendant. It was also clearly contended that the claims of the plaintiff are barred by limitation. However, in the other case, since an arbitration clause was contained in the said MoU, the plaintiff herein had to approach this Court by filing a Civil Miscellaneous Petition invoking Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes arising out of MoU dated 14.02.2011. This Court has held that the plaintiff-Company is guilty of waiting for an unreasonably long time to initiate action against the defendant. It was noticed that not a scrap of paper is available on record to show that the parties had mutually agreed to extend the time for completion of the contract. In view of the time fixed therein i.e., three months to procure the lands and get the scheduled lands converted from agricultural to non- agricultural purposes, this Court held that after lapse of three months, no efforts were made by the plaintiff- Company to seek repayment of the advance amount. Accordingly, having come to the conclusion that it is a clear case of ‘deadwood’, the CMP was dismissed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that in para 10 of the plaint, it is contended by the plaintiff that the 1^st defendant sought confirmation from the plaintiff that it would obtain ‘B’ katha at its cost and in order to obtain ‘A’ katha for each parcel of land and thereafter the kathas could be clubbed together and that the plaintiff would have to bear the costs. However, it is contended by the plaintiff that it declined to accept the request made by the 1^st defendant. Attention of this Court is also drawn to para 11 of the plaint where it is clearly stated that although the MoU stipulated the 1^st defendant to acquire ownership and get the lands converted within three months from the date of the MoU, there was no sign of the 1^st defendant complying with the said requirement. However, details of the items of the schedule properties where agreements of sale were obtained by the 1^st defendant with the owners are given in a tabular column in paragraph 11 while also stating that the 1^st defendant got a sale deed dated 17.11.2014 executed from the owners in respect of one item of property. It is averred in th