A suit for Specific Performance of a Contract is filed to secure the execution of the terms and conditions of the contracts in favour of the Plaintiff filing such a suit along with any obligations that accrue from such execution being demanded. Although specific performance demands the performance of the defendant contracting party to perform its part of the contract for successful execution, the Supreme Court has iterated the importance of the Plaintiff’s role in the suit for Specific Performance. In the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors Versus Om Prakash, the Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice R Bhanumati restored the judgment of the trial court which held that the Plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

The facts of the case were that the respondent-plaintiff had entered into a contract with the appellants-defendant for purchase of a shop in the year 2008 and the sale deed was to be registered at the office of the Sub Registrar. However, the sale deed was not executed and the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the sale deed. The Trial Court rejected it on the grounds that the respondent-plaintiff had failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. After the First Appellate Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the Trial Court judgment and restored the suit, the appellants-defendant appealed before the Apex Court which subsequently restored the order of the Trial Court.

Regarding the stand taken by the respondent-plaintiff on its suit for specific performance, the Bench observed as follows:

“ 7. In order to obtain a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and the readiness and willingness has to be shown through out and has to be established by the plaintiff. In the case in hand, though the respondent- plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance on 29th April, 2008, the respondent-plaintiff has not shown his capacity to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000  (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs). In his evidence, the respondent- plaintiff has stated that he has borrowed the amount from his friends and kept the money to pay the balance sale consideration. As rightly pointed out by the Trial Court, the respondent-plaintiff could not produce any document to show that he had the amount of Rs.22,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs) with him on the relevant date; nor was he able to name the friends from whom he raised money or was able to raise the money. Furthermore, as rightly pointed out by the Trial Court, the respondent-plaintiff could have placed on record his Accounts Book, Pass Book or the Statement of Accounts or any other negotiable instrument to establish that he had the money with him at the relevant point of time to perform his part of the contract. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court that the respondent-plaintiff has not been able to prove his readiness and willingness on his part.”

Thus the Bench allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the trial court in dismissing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff and ordered the appellants-defendant to refund the amount of Rs, 4,00,000/- paid as earnest money with interest.

 

Image Link: https://bit.ly/2yyY5tL

Judgment: Vijay Kumar and Ors Versus Om Prakash