Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh Son Of Sh. Kirpal Singh Son ... vs Sh. Jagmohan Lal Son Of Sh. Sham Dass And ... on 26 July, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.R. No.4330 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4330 of 2012
Date of Decision.26.07.2012
Karnail Singh son of Sh. Kirpal Singh son of S. Sohan Singh, resident of
village Jamalpur, Tehsil Bhogpur, District Jalandhar
.....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Jagmohan Lal son of Sh. Sham Dass and another .....Respondents
Present: Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate
for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The civil revision is filed by the defendant in a suit for specific performance, who wanted additional issues to be framed on the basis of his pleadings. The pleadings already filed included that there had been hardship caused to him by the plaintiff not acting as per the terms of the agreement and putting him to loss by his inability to perform the contract. The defence therefore is that it may not be equitable to grant relief of specific performance by exercising the Court's discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.
2. The learned counsel is aggrieved by the fact that an application for framing additional issues taking up specific contention regarding whether the plaintiff had not acted as per his undertaking and whether the defendant was not put to hardship would amount to taking away valuable defences available to him. I have gone through the C.R. No.4330 of 2012 -2- issues, which are already framed and there is an issue relating to whether the plaintiff has been able to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The issue is broad enough to accommodate the contention whether the plaintiff had acted as per the terms of contract.
3. The other issue is whether the petitioner is entitled for discretionary relief by suit for specific performance, which will examine the issue of whether the respective conduct of parties have been such as to render the claim for specific performance inequitable in the manner Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act contemplates. The trial Court has observed that it will be irrelevant to consider whether the defendant was able to perform his part of the contract with reference to 3rd party agreement. The defendant shall always be entitled to make the contention of what the law permits under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and bring to evidence whatever is supported through pleadings and whatever is merely an explanation of the pleadings.
4. With these clarifications, the order passed already by the Court is confirmed and the civil revision is disposed of.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 26, 2012 Pankaj*