Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Amrit Lal Vij - Appellant
Versus
Jalandhar Improvement Trust and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 5528 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-09-2014
CPC - Specific Performance of Contract - Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - [CPC, 1908, Order 6 Rule 17] - [Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963] - The court discussed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to insert the ingredients of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the plaint. The judgment highlighted the importance of averring and proving readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of the contract as per Section 16(c) of the Act, and the implications of failing to do so on the enforcement of specific performance of a contract.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, inter alia, being barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed a statutory appeal against the judgment and decree and filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to insert an averment regarding readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Court dismissed the application, stating that the amendment lacked due diligence on the part of the plaintiff and was filed after a significant delay. The court also observed that the plaintiff had failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as required by Section 16(c) of the Act.
Issues: The issues included the legality and validity of the agreement, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the enforceability of the agreement, the legality of the judgment and decree, and the plaintiff's entitlement to seek relief of permanent injunction, among others.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of averring and proving readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of the contract as per Section 16(c) of the Act. It held that the plaintiff's failure to make such averment and the delay in seeking amendment after the commencement of the trial were fatal to the case.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed by the court.
1. This petition is filed against the order dated 06.09.2012 dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (here-in-after referred to as the "CPC") to insert the ingredients of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (herein-after referred to as the "Act") in the plaint. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 09.10.1989. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 - Jalandhar Improvement Trust agreed to sell plot No. 655, measuring 1 kanal 1 marla (153 sq. ft.), situated in 110 Acre Scheme known as Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar, vide allotment letter No. JIT/296 dated 18.04.1984 in the name of Jasbir Singh Chadha-defendant No. 2. It is further alleged that Jasbir Singh Chadha paid more than a sum of Rs. 61,562/- towards the price of the said plot and through his General Power of Attorney, namely, Manmohan Singh, entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff on 09.10.1989 and received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 02,06.1989. Thereafter, on request of defendant No. 2, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 22,000/- on 09.06.1989, Rs. 21,635/- on 25.07.1989 and Rs. 1,10,000/- on 25.07.1989, thus made a total payment of Rs. 2,03,635/- upto 25.07.1989 to Manmohan Singh, General Power of Attorney of Jasbir Singh Chadha. The balance amount payable at the instance of the plaintiff was Rs. 35,495/-. As per the agreement, all the dues to the Jalandhar Improvement Trust were to be cleared either by the Jasbir Singh Chadha or his attorney and the Trust was to transfer the plot in favour of the plaintiff. The entire exercise was to be done before 25.10.1989.
2. The plaintiff applied to defendant No. 1-Trust for transfer of the plot and ultimately, served a legal notice on 06.04.1992. Defendant No. 1, vide its letter dated 21.05.1998, informed the plaintiff that he and Surinder Mahey may get the matter decided through the Civil Court. Thereafter, defendant No. 3 filed a suit for specific performance against defendant No. 1 and obtained the decree of specific performance on 25.07.2000 on the basis of alleged forged and fabricated agreement.
3. The plaintiff had thus filed the present suit while impleading Surinder Mahey, defendant No. 3, as a party and prayed for performance of the agreement to sell dated 09.10.1989, on the payment of balance sale consideration, declaring the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2000 in favour of defendant No. 3 passed in Civil Suit No. 153 dated 1998 filed against the Jalandhar Improvement Trust and others to be illegal, null and void. In the said suit, defendant No. 2-Jasbir Singh Chadha was proceeded against ex parte. After the defendants filed their respective written statements, the trial Court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the agreement dated 09.10.1989 in favour of plaintiff is legal and valid? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP
3. Whether the agreement can be legally enforced in view of the circumstances of the case? OPP
4. Whether the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2000 is illegal, null and void being the result of fraud and mis-representation? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction regarding alienation and construction? OPP
6. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
8. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD
9. Whether defendant No. 3 had already raised construction over the suit property? If so its effect? OPD-3
10. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
11. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
12. Whether the agreement dated 24.08.1984 is legal and valid? OPD
13. Whether the agreement dated 9.9.88 is legal and valid? OPD
14. Relief."
4. It has been catego
AI
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
