Smt. Babita Gupta vs Anandeshwar Agro Food Pvt. Ltd… — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2025)

Smt. Babita Gupta vs Anandeshwar Agro Food Pvt. Ltd… — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal admitted; interim stay of operation of the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 till the next date of listing, with the parties to maintain status quo as of today with regard to the property in dispute and not to alienate it till the next date of listing.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order directing execution of the sale deed is vitiated because the plaintiffs allegedly violated the essential term of the contract requiring the sale deed to be executed within 18 months of the agreement dated 30.03.2016 and gave no notice until 31.08.2019, argued by the appellant's counsel with reliance on Section 16(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Raised as counsel's contention at admission stage; not adjudicated in this order.)

Ratio / Principle

The first appeal is admitted.

Key takeaways

Till the next date of listing, operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned trial court shall remain stayed; the parties shall maintain status quo as of today with regard to the property in dispute and shall not alienate the property in dispute till the next date of listing.ratio¶9
The trial court record is to be summoned.ratio¶6
The respondents may file objections within a period of 3 weeks, to which a reply may be filed within the next one week.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Admission-stage order. First Appeal No. 89 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 5), Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.; order dated 12.05.2025. Under challenge: order dated 24.01.2025 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unnao in Regular Civil Suit No.416 of 2020 (In Re Anandeshwar Agro Food Pvt Ltd. & Anr vs Shri Babita Gupta) directing the appellants to execute a sale deed in pursuance to the agreement for sale dated 30.03.2016 after receiving Rs.5 Lakh from the plaintiffs. Appellant's counsel contended that Clause 3 of the agreement required execution within 18 months (period lapsed October, 2017), that the plaintiffs' notice came for the first time only on 31.08.2019, and that, placing reliance on Section 16(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the trial court's order was vitiated on this ground alone. The Court admitted the appeal, directed that the trial court record be summoned, permitted the respondents to file objections within three weeks (reply within the next one week), and stayed operation of the impugned order till the next date of listing, directing maintenance of status quo and prohibiting alienation of the property in dispute. The Section 16(b) contention was not decided at this stage.

Court No. - 5

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 89 of 2025

Appellant :- Smt. Babita Gupta Respondent :- Anandeshwar Agro Food Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Anil Kumar Gupta And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Narain Srivastava,Pawan Kumar Verma,Vartika Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- Puneet Chandra

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1 . Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2 . Under challenge is the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unnao in Regular Civil Suit No.416 of 2020 In Re Anandeshwar Agro Food Pvt Ltd. & Anr vs Shri Babita Gupta whereby the learned trial court has directed the appellants herein to execute a sale deed in pursuance to the agreement for sale dated 30.03.2016 after receiving an amount of Rs.5 Lakh from the plaintiffs.

3 . The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sale agreement dated 30.03.2016 as attributed between the parties categorically provides in Clause 3 that the sale deed is to be executed within a period of 18 months. The said time period lapsed in October, 2017. However, for the very first time the notice dated 31.08.2019 has been received from the plaintiffs for execution of the sale deed.

4 . Placing reliance on the provisions of Section 16(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the plaintiffs violated the essential term of the contract i.e. for having the sale deed executed within a period of 18 months and no notice etc., in this regard was also given consequently the order passed by the learned trial court becomes vitiated on this ground alone.

5 . Considering the aforesaid, the appeal is admitted.

6 . Let trial court record be summoned.

7 . The respondents may file objections within a period of 3 weeks to which reply may be filed within next one week.

8 . List thereafter.

9 . Till the next date of listing, operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned trial court shall remain stayed. The parties shall maintain status quo as of today with regard to the property in dispute. The parties shall not alienate the property in dispute till the next date of listing.

Order Date :- 12.5.2025

prateek

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench