Tarun Sawhney vs Uma Lal And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3281 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                    Judgment Pronounced on: 12.07.2011

+           CS(OS) No.2051/2010

TARUN SAWHNEY                                  .....Plaintiff

                           - versus -

UMA LAL AND OTHERS                          ....Defendants


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff:      Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
                        Mr. Harpreet Singh, Adv.

For the Defendants:          Mr. Arun Batra Verma, Adv. for
                             D-1, 2 & 4.
                             Mr. Varun Bhagot, Adv. for D-3
                             & 5.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                        No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                No
   in Digest?

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

IA 10720/2011 (filed by defendant No.3 & 5 under Section 14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act read with Section 151 of CPC

1. Clause 20 of the first agreement and clause 17 of

the second agreement both dated 16.09.2009 which are the

subject matter of this suit, read as under:-

"If this Agreement is not implemented within twelve calendar months from the date hereof this Agreement shall stand terminated and extinguished automatically without any further act of parties and the Vendors shall be at liberty to sell the said property to any other person after refund of earnest money, as also other lawful charges hereinabove mentioned if paid by the Vendee on behalf of the Vendor'; the intention of the parties is that they shall all be restored to the same position as at the date hereof and as if this Agreement had not been executed."

2. Relying upon the provisions contained in Section

14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act, defendants No.3 and 5 have

contained that since the agreements are determinable in

nature, the suit is hit by the aforesaid provision and the

agreements in question cannot be enforced. In support of

their contention, the applicants have relied upon the

decision of the Supreme Court in Her Highness Maharani

Shantidevi P. Gaikwad vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel

and Others, (2001) 5 SCC 101 and Central Bank of India

vs. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1965 SC 1288.

3. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff

who states that the contract is not determinable in nature

and reliance on Section 14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act,

therefore, is totally misplaced.

4. Section 14(1) of Specific Relief Act deals with the

contracts which cannot be specifically enforced and such

contracts include a contract which by its nature is

determinable. Therefore, the question which comes up for

consideration is as to whether the agreements dated

16.09.2009 can be said to be determinable by nature within

the meaning of Section 14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act. In my

view, Section 14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act deals with the

contracts which a party to the contracting is entitled to

determine, during the subsistence of the contract. This

clause, in my view, does not refer to a contract which would

stand determined on account of non-performance of his

obligation by a party to the agreement. Defendant No.5

states that clause 20 of the first agreement and clause 17 of

the second agreement, which are identical clauses, provide

for termination of the contract in the event of its not being

implemented within the time frame fixed in the agreement

and not by an action of a party to the agreement. Even if

the interpretation being given by defendants No.3 and 5 is

accepted, a clause providing for automatic termination of

the contract on account of its not being implemented within

a given time frame would not make the contract terminable

in nature, within the meaning of Section 14(1)(c) of Specific

Relief Act, which I feel only to such contracts which provide

for its termination by a party to the agreement, during the

subsistence of the agreement. Section 14(1) (c) refers to

agreements, which, either from their special character or

from special stipulations, are determinable at the option or

pleasure of the party against whom the relief is sought.

5. In the case of Her Highness Maharani

Shantidevi vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel and Others

(2001) (5) SCC 101, an agreement dated 24.03.1977 was

entered into between the owner and the licensee in respect

of a property known as Laxmi Vilas Palace Estate, Vadodra.

The plaintiff in that case had evolved a scheme for

constructing dwelling units for the accommodation of the

weaker sections of society and those units were to be

constructed on the portion of the properties. Clause 17 of

the agreement provided that it would not be unilaterally

rescinded by either party, after the licensee had been put in

the possession of the property. It was held by the Court

that the contract was of a determinable nature and it could

be determined at any time before the licensee was put into

possession. However, the agreements, subject matter of this

suit are wholly of a different nature and clause 20 of the

first agreement and clause 17 of the second agreement are

wholly different from clause 17 of the agreement in the case

of Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi (supra). It would

be pertinent to note here that the agreement in that case

provided for its termination by a party to the agreement

upto a particular stage and did not provide for its automatic

termination on account of its not being implemented in a

particular time frame. In the case of Central Bank of

India vs. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the

relevant clause provided that the insurance could be

terminated at any time at the request of the insurer and

could also be terminated at the instance of the company.

Again, the relevant clause provided for termination of the

contract by a positive act on the part of the Insurance

Company either at its own instance or on the request of the

insured. Since the agreements in the abovereferred cases

were wholly different from the agreements subject matter of

this suit, the reliance on these judgments appears to be

misplaced.

6. I find no merit in the application and the same is

hereby dismissed.

IA 10719/2011(O.7 R.11 CPC)

Heard in part till 4.30 P.M.

List for further arguments on 14th July, 2011 as

defendant No.5 is not available on 13th July, 2011.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE

JULY 12, 2011 'sn'