SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Cal) 275

A.K.SEN, SUDHIR RANJAN ROY
BARNIK RAY – Appellant
Versus
W. B. HOUSING BOARD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.MATILAL, D.BAGCHI, N.N.Gupta, SUCHIT KUMAR BANERJI, TAPAN KR.BHATTACHARJEE

ANIL K. SEN, J.

( 1 ) AN application under Or. 6, R. 17 of the C. P. C. filed at a very late stage having been dismissed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, by an order dt. June 16, 1984, the plaintiff has preferred the present revisional application.

( 2 ) THE suit was instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract for sale of a flat at Karunamoyee Housing Estate, Salt Lake City, Calcutta. In drawing up the plaint it is quite evident that the plaintiff overlooked the amended provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. Though the claim for specific performance was really based on implied pleadings envisaged by the said clause, there was no express pleading to the effect that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. Parties led evidence. Plaintiff too led evidence on the point and he was subjected to cross-examination. At the stage of argument the aforesaid defect in the pleading was brought home to the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for an amendment to incorporate the following additional pleading to the plaint, namely












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top