Back
ARUN MONGA
Santosh – Appellant
Versus
Kanta Devi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. timeline of the case and facts of the agreement (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. time as the essence of contract (Para 3) |
| 3. balance of equities during appeal (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. order of disposition of the case (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
Arun Monga, J.
Petition herein is for setting aside order dated 17.03.2023 (Annexure P1) passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby Ld. First Appellate Court dismissed the application, moved by petitioner/defendant, under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for staying operation of impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure P2) during pendency of first appeal.
2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.
2.1. Respondents filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 03.03.2010 allegedly executed by petitioner in favour of Ompal Singh, predecessor-in-interest of respondent/plaintiffs, agreeing to sell land measuring 12 Kanals. The suit was filed on 08.12.2017 i.e. after about 7 years from the alleged agreement. Ld. trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure P2).
2.2. Aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 30.01.2020, petitioner/defendant preferred an ap
Time is of the essence in contracts; courts must consider limitation periods when ruling on applications for stays during appeals.
The duty of the first appellate court to consider and decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on merits before or at the time of deciding the first appeal finally, and the appellate court's....
A petitioner seeking to stay execution of a decree must act diligently and with clean hands; otherwise, relief may be denied.
The grant of decree for specific performance is discretionary and equitable in nature, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The delay of 30 years in f....
A suit for specific performance must be filed within the limitation period; failure to do so results in dismissal.
The court emphasized the importance of providing convincing evidence and demonstrating genuine interest in seeking specific performance of a contract.
The admission of an agreement's execution shifts the burden of proof to the denying party, and failure to substantiate denial supports the validity of the agreement for specific performance.
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
