Mohammad Siddiqui v. Budhram and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second appeal regarding a suit for specific performance and declaration of title for 1988 agreement, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness within the limitation period. Consequently, an interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was also dismissed.
What the court decided
iASENoJsp
^'
^-"^yo.^T
^z ..M^
^
^-
IM THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILA$PUR
ro S.A. S 2£ 72006
APPELLANT ^PLAINTIFF
^OHAMMAD SIDDIQUI S/0 Hanif Mohammed Aged about, 58 Yrs. Resident Of, Nayapara, Balodabazar, District Raipur. (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS X. BUDHRAM S/0 3ANGARAM /DEFENDENTS PANDEY Aged About, 52 Yrs. (Wrongly mentioned as 22 Yrs.) R/0, Balodabazar, District, Raipur.
^. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through Collector, Raipur. (C.G.)
^ Through Collector, Raipur. c°? y^ V MfiMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTlOM^QWjm CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
h
XI-HC-78
3^ '*ll<ll<r<<M, ^rH^'lc, fs)dW^<
- s-^-w^^^
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as required for enforcement of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act.
Whether the suit filed in the year 2002 regarding a 1988 agreement is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ahmad Siddiqui S/o Hanif Mohammed
- respondent
Budhram S/o Sangaram/Pandey
- respondent
State of Chhattisgarh
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Chhattisgarh HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- SA/526/2006
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court