Delay in filing a suit for specific performance is insufficient to deny relief if the contract is within the statutory limitation period and the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

1. Defendant is in second appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellant as the defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance claiming that defendant agreed to sell land measuring 8 Kanals in his favour for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,60,000/- per acre. On 12^th of May, 2009 when the agreement was executed, plaintiff paid defendant a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as earnest money. Both the parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 20^th of November, 2009. It was further agreed that in case defendant fails to execute sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration, plaintiff will have a right to get the sale deed executed through Court. It was further claimed that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant through 10 separate cheques dated 20.05.2009, 25.05.2009, 09.07.2009, 12.07.2009, 09.08.2009, 12.08.2009, 09.09.2009, 12.09.2009, 09.10.2009 and 12.10.2009 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- each. Thus, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant. He always remained ready and willing to perform his part, still defendant failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as she did not turn up in the O/o Sub Registrar on 20^th of November, 2009. Plaintiff served defendant with notice dated 30^th of November, 2009 calling upon her to execute the sale deed on 15^th of December, 2009. Plaintiff again went to the O/o Sub Registrar, Saha on 15^th of December, 2009, but the defendant failed to turn up. On 18^th of December, 2009, on the asking of the defendant, plaintiff purchased stamp- papers, but the defendant still failed to come present in the O/o Sub Registrar, Saha on 18^th of December, 2009. Defendant in reply dated 6^th of December, 2009 to legal notice dated 30^th of November, 2009 though admitted receipt of Rs.14,00,000/-, yet has failed to perform her part. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for decree of specific performance.

4. Suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement. It was admitted that the agreement to sell was executed and Rs.4,00,000/- was received by the defendant. It was also admitted that the last date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 20^th of November, 2009. However, defendant claimed that the plaintiff never appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 20^th of November, 2009 which led to forfeiture of the earnest money. Defendant claimed that she was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed on 20^th of November, 2009 and appeared in the O/o Sub-Registrar, Saha and waited for plaintiff from 9.00 AM to 5.00 PM, but the plaintiff never turned up. It was also pleaded that the defendant rather approached Superintendent of Police for non-execution of sale deed. It was claimed that Rs.4,00,000/- have been received and the amount due is Rs.16,60,000/-. Plaintiff never paid Rs.10,00,000/- as claimed. It was further claimed that the plaintiff was short of funds and was having no money to perform his part.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement to sell on the ground as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has locus stand to file the present suit? OPP

3. Whether the suit plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not come t