Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(h) The central factual controversy being settled, it has to be then considered whether the plaintiff is eligible for the relief of specific performance. Due to the crucial amendment carried out in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with effect from 01/10/2018, which amendment was prospective in nature and therefore, the said amendment would be applicable to the present dispute, the agreement being executed in the year 2021, well after the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the amending act, it has to be considered that the present regime is very different from the earlier regime, inasmuch as the discretion of the court in granting the specific performance of contract has been done away with. In Global Music Junction (P) Ltd. v. Shatrughan Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5479, which was cited at bar by the Ld Counsel for the Plaintiff, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has discussed the impact of the same in lucid detail, the relevant observations are extracted herein :-

"38. This Court is of the view that the Amendment Act, 2018 introduces a paradigm shift in law regarding contractual enforcement in India. A glaring instance of the legislative shift is the amendment of Section 14 of Act, 1963 which deletes the earlier sub-clause (a) which Sh. Sultan Singh Gujjar Vs. Sh. Sanjay Sharma prescribed that the contracts for the non-performance of which compensation in money was an adequate relief would not be specifically enforced, meaning thereby that the plea that a party could be compensated in monetary terms as damages for breach of the contract and resultant refusal of interim injunction on the said ground, is no longer a ground to refuse specific performance of the contract. Consequently, the Amendment Act, 2018 does away with the primacy given to damages as a relief over specific performance. It shifts the focus from the previous default remedy of award of damages for breach of contract to enforcing specific performance of contracts. To highlight the change some of the provisions of the Act, 1963 and the Amendment Act, 2018 are contrasted herein below:--
18. This Court is of the view that by virtue of the changes brought about by the Amendment Act, 2018, the Courts will now grant specific performance unless the claim for relief is barred under limited grounds prescribed in the statute. This change is aimed at providing greater protection of contractual expectations by ensuring that a non-

defaulting party can obtain the performance it bargained for. The Amendment Act, 2018 intends to discourage errant parties who may deem it more viable to breach a contract than perform it, as the cost of damages may still be less than the cost of the performance.

19. The Amendment Act, 2018 has also brought the Indian Specific Performance Act in line with the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, as it aspires to achieve Sh. Sultan Singh Gujjar Vs. Sh. Sanjay Sharma harmonization in international law governing commercial contracts."

(i) Therefore, the aspect to be considered is whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his portion of the contract i.e. whether he was ready and willing to pay the sale consideration. If he was, the plaintiff's suit must be decreed. In support of his averment, the plaintiff has pleaded that in fact, in order to arrange the funds he had sold another of his properties, and to prove the same he produced PW- 2 who was the formal witness to prove the sale dated executed by him in favour of one Sunita Yadav which was proved as Ex PW 2/1 dated 24.12.2021. He testified that he had called the defendant on his mobile phone repeatedly and was given one excuse after another. He proved that he had sent the legal notice dated 08.01.2022, only one day after the last date of performance of the agreement. Pertinently, there is no cross examination of the plaintiff on this point, as the cross examination was solely focused upon the payment of Rs 10,00,000 cash, which has been discussed above. In the absence of any relevant cross examination, and considering the surrounding facts and circumstances, I find that the plaintiff has been able to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his portion of the agreement. The plaintiff was not required to prove that he had the exact cash in hand, but only that he was having the financial wherewithal, and the willingness to comply with the agreement. The defendant never invited the plaintiff to come forward with the sale consideration and it was not even his defence that the the plaintiff did not have the ready available cash with him. The plaintiff had given a legal notice one day Sh. Sultan Singh Gujjar Vs. Sh. Sanjay Sharma after the last date fixed for performance of the agreement. The present suit has been filed on 14.02.2022, soon after the plaintiff received notice of the refusal of the defendant to comply with the agreement, which would be earliest on 01.02.2022 which was the date of the reply of the legal notice Ex PW 1/8. The fact that plaintiff approached the Court of law promptly is yet another circumstance to show that the plaintiff was interested in performing the agreement.