SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Birendra Kumar, J.
Sameer Kohli S/o Shri Hitesh
Chandra Kohli and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Pawan Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Ratan Kumar Aggarwal – Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.6067 of 2019
Decided on 9.12.2022

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Ajay Paul Marken through VC, Mr. Sanjay Mehla, Ms. Sunita Mehla, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Nitin K. Gupta, Mr. Anmol Joshi, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Readiness and willingness on part of plaintiff is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of specific performance.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16 (i) (c) – Agreement to Sell – Specific Performance of Contract – Ad interim injunction – Readiness and willingness on part of plaintiff is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of specific performance – Pleading of plaintiff-appellants regarding readiness and willingness is to be proved at appropriate stage of trial – For the purpose of ad interim relief and to protect suit from being defeated by act of respondent or litigation being complicated, it would be necessary to restrain respondent from transferring suit property to any other person – Balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff-appellants – Plaintiff would be put in irreparable loss as money cannot compassionate for immovable property of choice – Injunction granted. (Paras 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20)

Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER

By the impugned order dated 16.11.2019 passed in civil suit No.412/2019, the learned court below has refused the prayer of the plaintiff-appellants to grant ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

2. A brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff/appellants entered into an agreement with the sole respondent to purchase property bearing No.G-1/362 (A) at RIICO Industrial Area, Khushkhera, in the District of Alwar. The total measurement of the land, which was subject matter of the deal was 1000 Sq. Mtrs. on total cost of Rs.73,00,000/-. At the time of agreement dated 26.12.2018 Rs.7,30,000/- was paid as advance consideration money and the remaining amount of Rs.65,70,000/- was to be paid till 02.04.2019 for getting the registered sale deed. The parties further agreed that the respondent shall procure no objection certificate from Rajasthan Financial Corporation, District Industrial Center, Pollution Board, Jaipur Electricity Distribution Corporation and other Government and non-Government Departments after clearing dues on the land before registration of the documents. Besides other conditions, the parties further agreed that if the seller goes back of the agreement, he will be required to make payment of double the paid consideration money and if the purchaser goes back, the deal would be deemed to be cancelled.

3. Since the respondent was to perform his obligation in the contract within time uncertain, therefore time was not the essence of the contract.

4. On 27.04.2019, the appellants wrote a letter to the respondent that they are ready with balanced consideration money and they want to pay and get the registered sale deed.

5. On 30.04.2019, the respondent replied that the money be paid by 01.05.2019.

6. According to the appellants, since reply was received in the second half of 01.05.2019, hence, the part money could not be paid. However, the appellants immediately sent whatsapp message to the respondent along with scanned copy of the bank draft and cheque and sought for intimation regarding time and place of the payment. The respondent has also annexed a copy of the whats-app message with the reply and alleges that the bank draft and cheque were ante dated just to defeat the time schedule mentioned for payment of money. The respondent declined to receive the remaining consideration money on the ground that payment was not made within time. Hence, the suit for specific performance of contract.

7. The appellants stated that the appellants were ready with bank draft of Rs.45,25,000/- and a cheque of Rs.19,72,000/-. The appellants pleaded their “readiness and willingness” to perform their part of the contract in the plaint also.

8. The respondent is contesting the suit mainly on the ground that false and flimsy plea has been taken by the appellants regarding “readiness and willingness”. In fact the appellants had no money to pay in full, the remaining consideration money.

9. The respondent in their written statement has quoted the assertion of the plaintiff-appellants in the notice dated 27.04.2019 as follows:—

“I am ready to pay the balance amount of Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs Seventy Thousand only through the Demand Draft. I have already drafted a DD in favour of Pawan Kumar Aggarwal (respondent) and I am ready to give you the drafted DD”.

10. The respondent pleaded that the aforesaid statement was wrong one and the appellants did not perform their part of the agreement, therefore, the appellants have no prima facie case to get any relief in the suit. Consequently, the court below has rightly refused the prayer for ad interim injunction.

11. The provisions of Section 16 (i) (c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963 as amended with effect from 01.10.2018 reads as follows:—

“16. Personal bars to relief.—Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person—

............

............

(c) [who fails to prove] that he has performed or has always been ready and willing t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top