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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3160

High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
Rani
Versus
B. Vijayakumar
C.R.P.NPD.No.2326 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 23-07-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:PA. Sudesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:V. Jeevagridharan, Advocate.

The importance of readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract is crucial in cases of specific performance.

Headnote:

specific performance - Civil Procedure Code - Order 20, Rule 1 - Sections 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act - 2010(10) SCC 512, (2011) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 429 - The court discussed the tenability of the decree granting the relief of specific performance and the adequacy of reasons for extending the time for the defendant to comply with the decree. It highlighted the importance of readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract and declared clause (2) of the decree as non-est in the eye of the law.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant. The suit was decreed, and the defendant failed to pay the amount as per the decree. The defendant sought an extension of time to comply with the decree, which was refused by the lower court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the decree was tenable and emphasized the importance of readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract. It declared clause (2) of the decree as non-est in the eye of the law and ordered the defendant to pay an enhanced amount within a specified period.

Issues: The issues were the tenability of the decree granting the relief of specific performance and the adequacy of reasons for extending the time for the defendant to comply with the decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract and declared clause (2) of the decree as non-est in the eye of the law.

Final Decision: The civil revision petition was ordered accordingly, and the defendant was directed to pay an enhanced amount within a specified period.

Judgment :-

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 9.6.2011 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Ambur, Vellore, in E.A.No.2 of 2010 in E.P.No.77 of 2009 in O.S.No.29 of 2004, this civil revision petition is filed.

2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:

(i) The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.29 of 2004 for specific performance as against the revision petitioner herein/defendant. After contest, the suit was decreed as under:

“Tamil”

(extracted as such)

(ii) The revision petitioner/defendant did not pay the amount as contemplated in clause (1) of the decree. Whereupon, the respondent herein/decree holder, by placing reliance on clause (2) of the decree, deposited the remaining sale consideration of Rs.5000/-and took steps to get the sale deed executed and at the E.P.stage, on receipt of notice, the revision petitioner/defendant filed necessary application to get the time extended for complying with Clause (1) of the decree.

(iii) After hearing both sides, the lower Court refused to extend the time to comply with clause (1) of the decree by the defendant.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been focussed by the defendant on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision and also the decree passed, would pilot his arguements, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

The decree is ex facie a wrong one. There cannot be any decree to the effect that in the event of the defendant not refunding the advance amount with interest, the plaintiff would be entitled for specific performance. As such, clause (2) of the decree should be taken as void, ab-initio and the revision petitioner/defendant has to be given time to comply with clause (1) of the decree and that too, in view of the fact that the petitioner herein/defendant is a widow; that she shifted her residence from the suit property to her daughter's house and that there was communication gap between herself and her advocate.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent herein/plaintiff, in a bid to extirpate and torpedo the pleas and averments on the side of the revision petitioner/defendant would pilot his arguements, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:

(i) It is too late in the day on the part of the revision petitioner/defendant to find fault with the decree; she allowed the grass to grow under her feet and she slept over the matter and such a person is not entitled to any relief before this Court.

(ii) The delay of more than 5 years cannot simply be ignored and if that is done so, that would amount to encouraging the petitioner/defendant to place reliance on her own fault.

Accordingly, the learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the C.R.P.

6. The point for consideration are as under:

(i) Whether the decree passed by the lower Court in granting alternatively the relief of specific performance is tenable under the law?

(ii) Whether there is adequate reason for extending the time for the petitioner/defendant to comply with clause (1) of the decree?

7. Both these points are taken together for discussion as they are interwoven and interlinked, interconnected and entwined with each other.

8. I recollect the following maxims:

(i) Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. The laws aid the vigilant, not those who sleep.

(ii) Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium. It is in the interest of the state that there be a limit to litigation.

9. The cumulative effect of both those maxims would be to the effect that a litigant should be vigilant in prosecuting his case and he cannot simply dilly-dally or shilly-shally with the litigation.

10. However, in this case, the petitioner/defendant would try to project her case by pointing out that she happens to be a helpless widow and not worldly wi




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top