Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
N.Palanivelu - Appellant
Vs.
S.Santhamani - Respondent
CRP Nos.2814 and 2815 of 2022 And CMP No.15217 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2022
Specific Performance - Civil Procedure Code - Order VII, Rule 14 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - [2022 SCC OnLine SC 840, (1996) 4 SCC 526, (2018) 3 SCC 658, (2020) 10 SCC 729, (2013) 14 SCC 1]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed two civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in Interlocutory Applications in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff sought to recall a witness and mark additional documents, which were not in possession at the time of the suit's institution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff's failure to plead about the additional documents and the objection letter to the Sub Registrar in the plaint, as required by Order VII, Rule 14 CPC, led to the dismissal of the Interlocutory Applications. The Court also noted that the plaintiff's conduct did not demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as required for specific performance.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of additional documents and the objection letter, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the compliance with procedural requirements under Order VII, Rule 14 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiff's failure to plead about the additional documents and the objection letter in the plaint, as required by Order VII, Rule 14 CPC, precluded their admissibility. The Court also emphasized the distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as established in previous judgments.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER :
CRP No.2814 of 2022 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in IA No.17 of 2022 in OS No.274 of 2018 dated 21.04.2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court at Namakkal.
2. CRP 2815 of 2022 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in IA No.18 of 2022 in OS No.274 of 2018 dated 21.04.2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court at Namakkal.
3. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner, who instituted a suit for specific performance.
4. It is not in dispute that the issues were framed in the suit and examination of witness were completed as of now. The suit has been now posted for arguments.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the Interlocutory Applications were filed to recall PW-1 and the another application for seeking to leave to mark two additional documents on the side of the plaintiff.
6. The Trial Court adjudicated the grounds raised in the Interlocutory Applications and dismissed the applications. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move these two civil revision petitions.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the additional documents sought to be marked were not in possession of the plaintiff at the time of institution of the civil suit and more specifically, the documents are pertaining to the objections raised by the plaintiff before the Sub Registrar, which are to be marked for the purpose of establishing the readiness and willingness in the suit for specific performance. Thus the documents became necessary for the purpose of establishing the case of the plaintiff and another application to recall PW-1 was filed in order to mark the documents and thus the Trial Court has committed an error in considering these two applications, which were filed within the scope of Order VII, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8. The revision petitioner states that in the event of not permitting the plaintiff to file such documents by recalling PW-1, the plaintiff would be prejudiced and thus the revision petitions are to be allowed.
9. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U.N.Krishnamurthy vs. A.M.Krishnamurthy [2022 SCC OnLine SC 840], wherein in paragraph-34, it has been held as under:-
“34. There is a distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract and both ingredients are necessary for the relief of Specific Performance. In His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji vs. Sita Ram Thapar [(1996) 4 SCC 526] cited by Mr. Venugopal, this Court said that there was a difference between readiness and willingness to perform a contract. While readiness means the capacity of the Plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the Plaintiff. The same view was taken by this Court in Kalawati vs. Rakesh Kumar [(2018) 3 SCC 658].”
10. The learned counsel for the first respondent raised an objection by stating that the suit Sale Agreement was dated 01.08.2012. The revision petitioner instituted the suit in OS No.274 of 2018 on 14.11.2018, after a lapse of about six years from the date of agreement.
11. The written statement was filed on 23.07.2019 and 13.12.2020. The issues were framed by the Trial Court on 11.12.2020. The first respondent herein filed IA No.6 of 2021 to advance the hearing on 28.12.2020. Further application for advance hearing was also filed in IA No.8 of 2021. Thereafter, due to Covid 19 spread, the case was adjourned periodically and subsequently posted for filing the reply statement and proof affidavit in the year 2021.
12. The first respondent filed CRP No.1993 of 2021 for speedy disposal of the suit and this Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in four months. Accordingl
AI
The importance of pleading and proving the existence of documents in accordance with procedural requirements, and the distinction between readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific ....
Court emphasized the importance of timely evidence submission in civil proceedings, stating that late applications require valid reasons, and upheld the trial court's decisions as free from jurisdict....
The court upheld the trial Court's dismissal of applications to introduce documents due to lack of valid grounds for delay, affirming the importance of timely evidence submission under procedural rul....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for defendants to produce documents along with the written statement and the need for sufficient cause to file documents later duri....
Timely submission of documents and the requirement for sufficient cause to be shown for their delayed filing are crucial principles in civil procedure.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
