Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12,22

Law: Contract Act, 1872

Section: IX,55

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: IX,113

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: VII,11

(a)    Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.12 & 22---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.55---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art.113---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed after a seven years delay---Time being essence of contract---Principle---Discretionary relief, granting of---Scope--Failure to deposit balance sale consideration at institution of suit---Impact on entitlement to relief stated---Brief facts were that the appellant (vendee) and respondent (vendor) entered into a sale agreement regarding suit property, under which only Rs.14,00,000/- of the agreed Rs.19 million sale consideration was paid, and the balance was required to be cleared under a compromise order stipulating payment by 07.07.2013---The appellant neither complied with the compromise terms nor made any further payment, and after several years filed suit for specific performance, which was rejected under O.VII R.11, C.P.C. as barred by limitation---The issue before the High Court was whether the appellant s suit for specific performance which was filed years after the agreed timelines and without payment of the remaining consideration, was maintainable in law and within limitation, so as to justify interference with the rejection of plaint and denial of discretionary relief? ---Held: Nothing by the appellant was articulated to explain such inordinate delay, let alone making efforts to make payment of remaining sale consideration in time---Single Judge had taken into account the fact that the contract between the parties was more than a decade old and worth of the subject property had meanwhile increased manifold; hence, such development i.e. property getting hugely costly was sufficient to deny the discretionary relief to the appellant---On the point of limitation, it had been held by the Single Judge that the sale agreement was executed on 19.04.2012 and the plaint was presented on 09.11.2019 after seven years, whereas, under Art.113 of the Limitation Act, appellant had only three years to file suit for seeking enforcement of the contract from the date of refusal---Not only the suit was…