9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Specific performance of contract, abatement due to death of plaintiff, readiness and willingness to perform contract.
Abatement due to death of plaintiff: The Supreme Court held that as per Rule 6 of Order 22, there is no abatement by reason of the death of a party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of the judgment. The judgment pronounced after the death of a party shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place. Therefore, the contention that the judgment and decree of the appellate court is a nullity due to the death of the plaintiff was deemed devoid of substance. Readiness and willingness to perform contract: The Court considered the evidence presented, including the plaintiff's failure to deposit a required amount or furnish a bank guarantee as directed by the court. It was noted that the plaintiff was involved in real estate transactions, had financial difficulties, and had not paid rent or fulfilled other obligations. The Court emphasized that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent for specific performance, as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963. The plaintiff's conduct before and after filing the suit, along with other circumstances, must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Specific performance of contract: The Court reiterated that the remedy for specific performance is an equitable remedy and is subject to the discretion of the court. The plaintiff must plead and prove that they have always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. Failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness may result in the denial of the relief of specific performance. The Court upheld the lower court's findings that the plaintiff had failed to show readiness and willingness to perform the contract, leading to the dismissal of the special leave petition.
|
