Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN
Jagmohan Bhargo – Appellant
Versus
Ajit Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and claims (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendants' positions in the case (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court's findings and conclusions (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments by appellant and respondent (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. principles related to cause of action and previous suits (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final ruling and consequences of plaintiff's actions (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. conclusion and order from the court (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
1. Defendant No.4 is in second appeal aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.10.2000 with an alternate prayer for grant of recovery of Rs.6 lakhs along with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property.
3. As per the plaintiff, defendant No.1 agreed to sell 8 kanals of land as described in the headnote of the plaint in his favour vide written agreement dated 12.10.2000 for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,25,000/-. Rs.3,00,000/- was paid as earnest mone
The maintainability of a suit for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC if a plaintiff omits to claim it in an earlier suit concerning the same cause of action.
The subsequent suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell based on a different cause of action is maintainable.
Specific performance can be enforced against subsequent purchasers if they had knowledge of the original contract.
The plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC prohibits a second suit for specific performance if based on the same cause of action previously omitted, and the suit is also barred by limitation under Art....
The court ruled that a suit for specific performance was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2 CPC as the appellants were permitted to withdraw a prior suit and file a new one.
The court ruled that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, and failure to do so, along with undue hardship to defendants, can preclude 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
