Suit for specific performance

Suit for specific performance—Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11(a) & 11(d), Order 7 Rule 6 and Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code—Date of agreement not given in plaint—Held, failure to mention date violates the statutory requirement and if the date is one which attracts the bar of limitation, the plaint has to conform to Order VII Rule 6 and specifically plead the ground upon which exemption from limitation is claimed.

Click here to download the full text of the judgment

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17, Proviso

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 6, Rule 17, Proviso—Application for amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced—Plaintiff, in the present case, filed an application seeking amendment to incorporate specific pleading in compliance with Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act and Form 47 of Appendix A CPC on the ground that the same was missed due to “type mistake” in spite of due diligence—Said application allowed by the High Court—Held, the High Court has committed an error in accepting the explanation that it was a typographical error to mention and it was an accidental slip—Omission to take up specific plea mandated in terms of Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, held, is a mistake which does not come within the preview of a typographical error—Act of neglecting to perform an action which one has an obligation to do cannot be called as a typographical error—There is a clear lack of ‘due diligence’—Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c).  


File Name:- SC_JANUARY 2012_11

Suit for specific performance

Suit for specific performance—Property located in urban area—Held, since the value of property escalates in urban areas very fast therefore it would not be equitable to grant specific performance after a lapse of long period of time.