Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Kumar Gautam vs Rajbir Singh And Another on 23 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-4415-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.12.2025
Arun Kumar Gautam ....Appellant
V/s
Rajbir Singh and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate and
Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate,
for the caveator-respondent No.1.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
Defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, dismissing his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dera Bassi, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.07.2020 was decreed as per the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.
3. Plaintiffs (Rajbir Singh and Kirna Devi) instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.07.2020, executed by the defendant (Arun Kumar Gautam) in favour of the plaintiffs for sale of House No.41A, situated at AKS Colony, Village Lohgarh, Sub-Tehsil Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar 1 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:49 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -2- (Mohali) (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). In the alternative, Rs.24 lakhs (double of earnest money) was claimed with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, mortgaging, gifting or transferring the suit property was also sought. 3.1 It was claimed that agreement to sell dated 02.07.2020 had been executed with regard to sale of the suit property. The total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.51,25,000/-. A sum of Rs. 12 lakhs was paid as earnest money. The date of execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 21.09.2020.
3.2 It was claimed that on 21.09.2020, the plaintiffs remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Zirakpur from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. along with the balance sale consideration in the shape of two demand drafts and amount for the purpose of stamp papers, registration fee etc. Despite being present there for the whole day, the defendant did not turn up to get the sale deed executed. The plaintiffs got their presence marked before the Sub- Registrar, Zirakpur and affidavit dated 21.09.2020 was executed. However, the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiffs approached the defendant and requested him to get the sale deed executed but he refused. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendant was attempting to alienate the suit property. 3.3 It was also averred that the defendant had got an endorsement dated 21.09.2020 made in the record as regards attachment of the suit property by an order of a Court. It was claimed that the said entry had been got made by the defendant in connivance with some complainant. 3.4 It was averred that the plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and were ready and willing to comply with the terms of the agreement but the defendant had failed to 2 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -3- comply with the suit. Under the circumstances, the suit was instituted.
4. The suit was opposed by the defendant. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections as regards maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, the plaintiffs not having approached the Court with clean hands, etc. were raised.
4.1 On merits, the execution of the agreement to sell, the total sale consideration, payment of earnest money, the date for the execution of the sale deed were admitted. However, it was denied that the plaintiffs had remained present on 21.09.2020 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Zirakpur along with the balance sale consideration.
4.2 It was averred that in fact on 21.09.2020, the defendant had presented himself before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Zirakpur but on the said date, the plaintiffs, along with certain other persons, kidnapped the defendant from the Tehsil Complex, Zirakpur and detained him in a Gaushala near the Tehsil Complex, where he was given beatings and a cheque of Rs.12 lakhs was forcibly taken from him. A complaint in this regard was moved by the defendant to the police but no action was taken. 4.3 It was averred that the defendant was ready to execute the sale deed and get the same registered but there was an entry of attachment in the Jammabandi regarding the suit property and as and when the same was deleted, the defendant would execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs on receipt of the balance sheet consideration.
4.4 All other averments were denied.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.07.2020?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -4-
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of recovery of double amount as prayed for?OPP
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD
5. Whether plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD
6. Whether plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present suit at their own act and conduct?OPD
7. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD
8. Relief."
6. It transpires that during the pendency of the suit, a legal notice dated 17.03.2022 (Annexure A-7) was issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs calling upon them to get the sale deed executed within 7 days after paying the balance consideration.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid legal notice having been issued by the defendant and received by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs instituted an application under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for shore "the CPC") for passing a decree in their favor. Reference in this application was made to the legal notice dated 17.03.2022. 7.1 The said application was opposed by way of a reply in which, it was averred that the application had been filed at a belated stage and that the price of the suit property had increased. It was also claimed that the plaintiffs did not have any ready money for the sale consideration. Other averments were denied. As regards the legal notice, it was averred the same had not been sent by the counsel on the instructions of the defendant.
8. It transpires that another legal notice dated 04.08.2022 had been issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs that since in pursuance to legal notice dated 17.03.2022, the plaintiffs had not come forward to get the sale deed executed, they were being given time of another 7 days for execution of the sale deed.
4 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -5-
9. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 08.04.2025 allowed the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decision, the defendant preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by the Court Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar, vide its judgment and decree dated 03.11.2025, leading to the filing of the present appeal.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the impugned decisions are not sustainable. He submits that the plaintiffs had never been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. Learned counsel submits that even when legal notice dated 17.03.2022 was issued, the plaintiffs did not come forward to get the sale deed executed and instead filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs had not been able to show that they were in possession of the balance amount of the sale consideration and, therefore, it stood proved that they had never been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments in Sangita Sinha vs. Bhawana Bhardwaj & others, 2025 (2) RCR (Civil) 426, Basant Ram (D) through LRs and others vs. Sukhbir Singh and others (Civil Appeal No.4667-2025 arising out of SLP(Civil) No.11429-2022, decided on 02.04.2025), R. Kandasamy (since dead) & others vs. T.R.K. Sarawathy and another, (2025) 3 SCC 513, U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) through LRs vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy, (2023) 11 SCC 775, Shenbagam & others vs. K.K. Rathinavel, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 44, C.S. Venkatesh vs. A.S.C. Murthy (D) by LRs and others, 2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 71, Sukhwinder Singh vs. Jagroop Singh and another, 2020 (1) RCR (Civil) 951, Ravi Setia vs. Madan Lal and others, 5 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -6- 2019 (4) RCR (Civil) 916, Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. and another vs. Daljit Singh and others, (2019) 20 SCC 425 and Padmakumari and others vs. Dasayyan and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 972.
12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.
13. As regards the scope of second appeal, it is now a settled proposition of law that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals preferred are to be treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 CPC. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs and others V/s Chandrika and others, (2016)6 SCC 157, followed by the judgments in the case of Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR V/s Ram Parkash and others, (2019) 11 SCC 317 and Satender and others V/s Saroj and others, 2022(12) Scale 92. Relying upon the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, no question of law is required to be framed.
14. The execution of the agreement to sell dated 02.07.2020, payment of earnest money of Rs.12 lakhs and fixing of the date of execution of the sale deed as 21.09.2020 is admitted. It was the positive case of the plaintiffs that they had remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Zirakpur on 21.09.2020 for execution of the sale deed but the defendant did not turn up.
15. When the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs, the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC came to be moved. The said application was based upon legal notice dated 17.03.2022 wherein, the defendant had called upon the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed within seven days. The said application was again opposed by the defendant and thereafter, another legal notice dated 04.08.2022 was issued.
6 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -7-
16. If one examines the sequence of events, it clearly emerges that the defendant had been backing out of the agreement to sell. The moment the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs, legal notice dated 17.03.2022 was issued calling upon the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed within seven days. The plaintiffs did the right thing by moving an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC since there was a restraint order passed by the Court. Not only this, they could not have relied upon the legal notice alone to appear in the office of the Sub-Registrar once the matter was sub-judice.
17. Notably, the legal notice was moved on 17.03.2022 and the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was moved shortly thereafter on 25.03.2022. The plaintiffs showed their bona fides here as well. The defendant again opposed the application. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to Order 12 Rule 6 CPC:-
"6. Judgment on admissions.--(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise; whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced."
18. It is well settled that admissions should be unequivocal and clear. In the written statement, the following averment was made:-
"4. Para 4 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is wrong that the defendant refused to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiffs as alleged. The defendant is ready to execute the sale deed and get the same registered but there is entry of attachment in the Jamabandi regarding the house in question and as and when the said entry is deleted, the defendant shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on receipt of balance sale consideration. It is wrong that the 7 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -8- defendant cleverly got entered an endorsement dated 18.09.2020 of attachment of property in question of defendant by an order of the court. It is wrong that the entry has been got entered by the defendant in connivance with some complainant in this case: It is wrong that the defendant being fully in his knowledge regarding the attachment order prior to entering into present agreement dated 02.07.2020 for purpose of committing cheating with the plaintiffs. Infact the plaintiff is having no ready money with him and he does not want to get the sale deed executed in his favour. The plaintiff in order to get time for the execution of the sale deed has filed the present suit."
19. Thereafter, in the legal notice dated 17.03.2022, the following averments were made:-
"5. That my client is ready to get execute the sale deed in the favour of you above addressee as per the conditions of agreement to sell if you above addressee will pay the balance amount as per the agreement to sell to my client.
6. That my client through this legal notice giving this information to you above addressee to get execute the sale deed of the house in question within sevan days from the receipt of this legal notice, if you above addressee will failed to get execute the sale deed by giving the balance consideration amount to my client then my client will be free to sale out the house in question to another one and earnest money of Rs. 12,0000/- given by you above addressee to my client will stand forfeited.
7. That instead of making and communication with my client you cunningiy visited to the office of Registrar (Tehsildar), Panchkula and get yourse'f marked present.
Keeping in view, the facts mentioned above, you above addressee is hereby, informed through this legal notice that if you failed to get execute the sale deed by giving balance amount to my client within 7 days from the receipt of this legal notice then earnest money given by you above addresse to my client will be forfeited and agreement to sell of earnest money will stand cancelled and my client will be at liberty to sale out the house in question to another one."
20. The aforesaid makes it clear that the admission was unequivocal.
21. The defendant also wrongly set up an incident of his having 8 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -9- been kidnapped by the plaintiffs. Strangely, if such an incident had taken place, it is not understood as to why no FIR was registered. This also makes it clear that the defendant was only trying to avoid the execution of the sale of the deed.
22. In so far as readiness and willingness is concerned, Courts have repeated held that there has to be continuous readiness and willingness of a party during all stages, including at all times during the pendency of the suit. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments in the case of N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, 1995 (5) SCC 115; Prakash Chandra v. Angadial, 1979(4) SCC 393; Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corpn. (P) Ltd., 2002(8) SCC 146; Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi, 2019(3) SCC 704; P. Daivasigamani v. S. Sambandan, 2022(14) SCC 793; and U.N. Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased) v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2023(11) SCC
775. In the case of C.S.Venkatesh v. A.S.C.Murthy (D) By Lrs., 2020(3) SCC 280, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"15. The words 'ready and willing' imply that the plaintiff was prepared to carry out those parts of the contract to their logical end so far as they depend upon his performance. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of performance. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior, and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount which he has to pay the defendant must be of necessity to be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution of the contract till the date of decree, he must prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready to perform his contract.
16. In N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) by LRs. v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and Others, it was held that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant of the relief of specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is 9 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -10- required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior to and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must necessarily be proved to be available.
17. In Pushparani S. Sundaram and Others v. Pauline Manomani James(deceased) and Others2, this Court has held that inference of readiness and willingness could be drawn from the conduct of the plaintiff and the totality of circumstances in a particular case. It was held thus:
"So far these being a plea that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract is there in the pleading, we have no hesitation to conclude, that this by itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellants were ready and willing in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. This requires not only such plea but also proof of the same. Now examining the first of the two circumstances, how could mere filing of this suit, after exemption was granted be a circumstance about willingness or readiness of the plaintiff. This at the most could be the desire of the plaintiff to have this property. It may be for such a desire this suit was filed raising such a plea. But Section 16(c) of the said Act makes it clear that mere plea is not sufficient, it has to be proved." 1995 (5) SCC 115 2002 (9) SCC 582.
18. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Manjunath Anandappa URF Shivappa Hanasi v. Tammanasa and Others and Pukhraj D. Jain and Others v. G. Gopalakrishna,"
23. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India again traced the entire law on the issue of readiness and willingness in the case of Sangita Sinha v. Bhawana Bhardwaj and others, (Civil Appeal No.4972 of 2025, decided on 25.04.2025) Law finder ID 2715344:
"16. It is settled law that under the Act, 1963, prior to the 2018 Amendment, specific performance was a discretionary and equitable relief. In Kamal Kumar vs. Premlata Joshi and Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 704, which has been followed in P. Daivasigamani vs. S. Sambandan, (2022) 10 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -11- 14 SCC 793, this Court framed material questions which require consideration prior to grant of relief of specific performance. The relevant portion of the judgment in Kamal Kumar (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:
"7. It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are:
7.1. First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; 7.2. Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; 7.3. Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract;
7.4. Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; 7.5. Lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money, etc. and, if so, on what grounds.
8. In our opinion, the aforementioned questions are part of the statutory requirements [See Sections 16(c), 20, 21, 22, 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Forms 47/48 of Appendices A to C of the Code of Civil Procedure). These requirements have to be properly pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings and proved with the aid of evidence in accordance with law. It is only then the Court is entitled to exercise its discretion and accordingly grant or refuse the relief of specific performance depending upon the case made out by the parties on facts."
17. It is trite law that 'readiness' and 'willingness' are not one but two separate elements. 'Readiness' means the capacity of the Respondent No.1- buyer to perform the contract, which would include the financial position to pay the sale consideration. 'Willingness' refers to the intention of the Respondent No.1-buyer as a purchaser to perform his part of the contract, which is inferred by scrutinising the conduct of the Respondent No.1-buyer/purchaser, including attending circumstances.
11 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -12-
18. Continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the Respondent No.1-buyer /purchaser from the date of execution of Agreement to Sell till the date of the decree, is a condition precedent for grant of relief of specific performance. This Court in various judicial pronouncements has held that it is not enough to show the readiness and willingness up to the date of the plaint as the conduct must be such as to disclose readiness and willingness at all times from the date of the contract and throughout the pendency of the suit up to the decree. A few of the said judgments are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A. In Gomathinayagam Pillai and Ors, vs. Palaniswami Nadar, (1967) 1 SCR 227, it has been held as under:-
"6. But the respondent has claimed a decree for specific performance and it is for him to establish that he was, since the date of the contract, continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail. As observed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Sassoon, SCC OnLine PC 43:
"In a suit for specific performance, on the other hand, he treated and was required by the Court to treat the contract as still subsisting. He had in that suit to allege, and if the fact was traversed, he was required to prove a continuous readiness and willingness, from the date of the contract to the time of the hearing, to perform the contract on his part. Failure to make good that averment brought with it the inevitable dismissal of his suit." The respondent must in a suit for specific performance of an agreement plead and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract continuously between the date of the contract and the date of hearing of the suit...." (emphasis supplied) B. In Vijay Kumar and Others vs. Om Parkash. 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1913, it has been held as under:-
"6. In order to obtain a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and the readiness and willingness has to be shown throughout and has to be established by the plaintiff...." (emphasis supplied) C. In J.P. Builders and Another vs. A. Ramadas Rao and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 429, it has been held as under:-
"27. It is settled law that even in the absence of specific plea by the opposite party, it is the mandate of the statute that the plaintiff has to comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and when there is non-compliance with this statutory 12 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -13- mandate, the court is not bound to grant specific performance and is left with no other alternative but to dismiss the suit. It is also clear that readiness to perform must be established throughout the relevant points of time. "Readiness and willingness" to perform the part of the contract has to be determined/ascertained from the conduct of the parties."
(emphasis supplied) D. In Umabai and Another vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (Dead) by LRs and Another, (2005) 6 SCC 243, it has been held as under:-
"30. It is now well settled that the conduct of the parties, with a view to arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff- respondents were all along and still are ready and willing to perform their part of contract as is mandatorily required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act must be determined having regard to the entire attending circumstances. A bare averment in the plaint or a statement made in the examination- in- chief would not suffice. The conduct of the plaintiff- respondents must be judged having regard to the entirety of the pleadings as also the evidence brought on records." (emphasis supplied) E. In Mehboob-Ur-Rehman (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Ahsanul Ghani (supra), it has been held as under:- "16. Such a requirement, of necessary averment in the plaint, that he has already performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him being on the plaintiff, mere want of objection by the defendant in the written statement is hardly of any effect or consequence. The essential question to be addressed to by the Court in such a matter has always been as to whether, by taking the pleading and the evidence on record as a whole, the plaintiff has established that he has performed his part of the contract or has always been ready and willing to do so..."
(emphasis supplied) F. In C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. Murthy (Dead) by Legal Representatives & Ors, (supra), it has been held as under:- "16. The words "ready and willing" imply that the plaintiff was prepared to carry out those parts of the contract to their logical end so far as they depend upon his performance. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of performance. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior, and subsequent to the filing of the 13 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -14- suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount which he has to pay the defendant must be of necessity to be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution of the contract till the date of decree, he must prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready to perform his contract.
17. In N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao [N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115], it was held that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant of the relief of specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior to and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances.
The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must necessarily be proved to be available."
24. Reverting to the facts case, it was the positive case of the plaintiffs that they had remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 21.09.2020 with the balance sale consideration in the form of two demand drafts and the expenses for the registration of the sale deed, etc. Still further, once the sale deed was not executed, the suit was instituted promptly in 2020 itself. Though the trial Court does not mention the date of institution of the suit, the plaint mentions the same. The plaint shows that it was instituted on 07.10.2020. This also shows the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs. Not only this, the moment legal notice dated 17.03.2022 was issued, the plaintiffs instituted an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. It has to be borne in mind that the readiness and willingness has to be seen from the conduct of a party. The plaintiffs, in the present case, as already mentioned, were extremely prompt at every stage. This itself shows their readiness and 14 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 ::: RSA-4415-2025 -15- willingness. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. However, they would not come to his aid in view of the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs and the law on the subject, as discussed.
25. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that no illegality was committed by both Courts in allowing the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and decreeing the suit.
26. That being so, the instant appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
December 23, 2025
vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
15 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 20:55:50 :::