SC expounds, Fate of a Specific Performance Suit depends on the conduct of Plaintiff. [Read the Judgement]

Specific Performance Suit, pic by: YouTube

14 Feb 2020

Categories: Latest News Case Analysis

The Supreme Court of India, in one of its recent judgement, has held that the conduct of a plaintiff is very crucial in a suit for specific performance.

The important verdict came out in a case titled as Atma Ram vs. Charanjit Singh.

CASE BACKGROUND

The plaintiff, in this case, was a party to an agreement for sale dated 12.10.1994. The date for performance of the contract was fixed under the agreement as 07.10.1996. After more than three years, the plaintiff filed a suit only for the relief of mandatory injunction, which he valued only at ₹250 and paid a fixed court fee of ₹25.

The defendant herein then challenged the maintainability of the suit and thus on hearing, the Trial Court held that the suit was, in fact, one for specific performance of an agreement of sale and that the technical objection regarding the maintainability could be overcome by directing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay the requisite court fee.

Thereafter the plaintiff paid the deficit court fee and the Trial Court chose to treat the suit as one for specific performance, which was ultimately decreed by it.

After this, the matter reached the First Appellate Court which sided the decree. Then the High Court upheld the First Appellate Court's judgment and stated the suit as time-barred.

Before the Apex Court, the plaintiff contended that by virtue of Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such payment would have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance itself.

Contending the above, the Court stated:

" It is true that Section 149 CPC confers a discretion upon the Court to allow a person, at any stage, to pay the whole or part of the court fee actually 6 payable on the document, but which has not been paid. Once the Court exercises such discretion and payment of court fee is made in accordance with the said decision, the document, under Section 149, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance."

Though the Court held the above, but also noted that the dubious conduct of the plaintiff in filing the suit (after more than three years of the date fixed under the agreement of sale) only as one for mandatory injunction, and valuing the same as such and paying court fee accordingly, but chose to pay proper court fee after being confronted with an application for the dismissal of the suit.

It pointed out that clever ploys cannot always pay dividends.

The bench thus upheld the High Court's judgement and added::

"The conduct of a plaintiff is very crucial in a suit for specific performance. A person who issues a legal notice on 12.11.1996 claiming readiness and willingness, but who institutes a suit only on 13.10.1999 and that too only with a prayer for a mandatory injunction carrying a fixed court fee relatable only to the said relief, will not be entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance. "

The judgement was delivered by a bench comprising of Justice NV Ramana and Justice V. Ramasubramanian on 10-02-2020.

Read Judgement Here:

Tags : Supreme Court Specific Performance of Contract Code of Civil Procedure Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App