Raj Kr. Singh vs Madhuri Kumari @ Madhubala & Ors on 20 August, 2014
17. The learned counsel on this issue argued the case in
another angle and submitted that when one year time was fixed in
the agreement no party can insist the other party as of right to
perform his part of the contract and be ready and willing even
before expiration of time and if one party is allowed to insist the
purpose of fixation of time becomes meaningless and redundant.
The learned counsel relied upon the decisions of A.I.R. 1967
Madras 220 (S. P. Narayaaswami Pillai v. Dhanakoti Ammal)
and A.I.R. 1986 Delhi 275 (Sant Lal v. Shyam Dhawan).
According to the learned counsel since the time has been fixed for
one year, the plaintiff cannot be asked to be ready and willing to
perform his part from the date of execution of the agreement till the
date of the decree. If the plaintiff is asked to be ready and willing
from the date of agreement itself, the plaintiff may perform his part
of the contract on the last date also. Therefore, non-taking of any
action within this period fixed in the agreement will not mean that
the plaintiff was not ready and willing and moreover whether the
plaintiff was ready and willing can be seen only after the period
fixed in the contract.