Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Rahmuddin (since deceased) through LRs – Appellant
Versus
Subhan Khan (since deceased) through LRs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.1996 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.1994 passed by the learned trial Court, decreeing of the respondents-plaintiffs, has been dismissed while upholding the aforesaid judgment of the learned trial Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being described in the manner in which they were before the learned Trial Court.
3. In brief, the facts are that the plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 26.08.1988, whereby the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement, the defendant received Rs. 51,000/- as earnest money, while the balance sale consideration of Rs. 24,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed i.e. on 31.05.1990. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and had repeatedly requested the defendant
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 subsequent suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell based on a different cause of action is maintainable.
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.
![C.M. Divakaran [Died] S/o Madhavan vs K.S. Balan S/o Sreedharan - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2716](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_1.png)
The court held that specific performance is a discretionary relief and denied it due to the plaintiff's delay and lack of demonstrated readiness to perform the contract, resulting in inequity to the ....
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.
The bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply when a second suit is based on a distinct cause of action arising from subsequent events, such as the lifting of a government ban on property registra....
For specific performance, a plaintiff must consistently prove readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. Failure to do so, along with unexplained delays, can result in denial....
The court upheld the agreement to sell's execution and the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract. Specific performance granted with enhanced consideration due to market changes reflecting the....
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
