9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Readiness and willingness to perform the contract u/s 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 2. Discretionary jurisdiction u/s 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 3. Reasonable time for filing the suit. 4. Interference by the appellate court with the discretion exercised by the lower courts. Summary: 1. Readiness and Willingness to Perform the Contract u/s 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: The plaintiff did not make any averment regarding his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract in the plaint, which is mandatory u/s 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The trial court dismissed the suit on this ground, and the first appellate court agreed. However, the High Court reversed this finding, stating that the question of readiness and willingness did not arise as Defendants 1 and 2 did not contest the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to both aver and prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract. The plaintiff's vague statements and lack of material evidence failed to meet this requirement. 2. Discretionary Jurisdiction u/s 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: The trial court and the first appellate court refused to grant discretionary relief to the plaintiff, considering his conduct. The High Court's interference with this discretion was deemed inappropriate by the Supreme Court, which held that the High Court should not have interfered without finding that the lower courts had exercised their discretion on wrong legal principles. 3. Reasonable Time for Filing the Suit: The plaintiff filed the suit almost six years after the agreement, without any material evidence showing he had asked Defendant No. 1 to execute a deed of sale within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court reiterated that even if time is not of the essence, the plaintiff must perform his part of the contract within a reasonable time, considering all surrounding circumstances. 4. Interference by the Appellate Court with the Discretion Exercised by the Lower Courts: The Supreme Court stated that an appellate court should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower courts unless it is shown that the discretion was exercised unreasonably or capriciously. The High Court's reversal of the trial court's well-considered judgment was found to be unjustified. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal with costs, emphasizing the necessity of averring and proving readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the proper exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, and the importance of filing the suit within a reasonable time.
|
