The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to reopen a specific performance suit and permit deposit of balance consideration after the trial concluded and judgment was reserved, holding the trial court committed no error.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs awarded to either party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
Civil Revision Petition No. 4725 of 2010
Dated: 19.10.2010
Between: Thotipalli Mynoddin, Kadiri ..... PETITIONER AND Kurakula Rajagopal, Kadiri. .....RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
Civil Revision Petition No. 4725 of 2010
ORDER:
The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri. The suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 14.11.2005 executed by the respondent herein and to execute registered sale deed on receiving the balance sale consideration. The trial was completed and arguments were also over and the judgment was reserved on 16.09.2010. At that stage the plaintiff filed I.A.No.336 of 2010 with a prayer to reopen the suit and to permit him to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs in the Court. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 07.10.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is
filed.
Section 16 ( c ) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the specific performance of contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person, who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. The explanation (1) to Section 16 (c) further states that where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court.
It is clear from the above provision that it is for the plaintiff to establish the fact that he is ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract and it is not absolutely essential to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit the balance consideration in the Court.
It is also relevant to note that in the present case even the arguments were concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the plaintiff had adduced evidence to show that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
In the circumstances, the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in rejecting the permission sought by the petitioner to deposit the balance sale consideration.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_____________ G. ROHINI, J
Date: 19.10.2010 KLP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff can seek permission to deposit balance consideration after the trial is completed and matter is reserved.
Whether failure to tender or deposit money in court precludes enforcement of specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Whether the district court erred in rejecting the application to reopen the suit for depositing balance sale consideration.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Thotipalli Mynoddin
Kurakula Rajagopal
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
