Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 307 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing R. C. Chandiok & Anr vs Chuni Lal Sabharwal & Ors on 12 October, 1970

Sri Lakshmi Rama Cooperative Building ... vs Abdul Majeed, on 3 March, 2022

In R.C. Chandiok vs. Chuni Lal Sabharwal, (7 supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had specifically directed this course of action even where the subsequent purchasers were not parties to the suit. On the other hand, the provisions of Order I, Rule 10, as interpreted by this court, do not lend themselves to impleading subsequent purchasers. At this stage, one significant aspect of these 19 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.1790 of 2019 & batch judgements has to be noticed. In all these judgements, the court did not take the view that Order I, Rule 10, prohibits or bars the impleading of third parties in an execution petition. The view taken is that, the applications under Order I, Rule 10, are not maintainable in execution proceedings as the language of this provision restricts the application of this provision to live suits and pending matters. To put it in another way, the ratio is that the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 are not applicable to implead petitions in Execution Petitions. Therefore there is no provision, in the Civil Procedure Code, governing the procedure for impleading subsequent purchasers at the stage of execution proceedings.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

A.N.Arunachalam vs T.Sivaprakasam on 28 January, 2011

12. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates "readiness and willingness" on the part of the plaintiff and it is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance. It is also clear that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must allege and prove a continuous "readiness and willingness" to perform the contract on his part from the date of the contract. The onus is on the plaintiff. It has been rightly considered by this Court in R.C.Chandiok and Anr. v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal and Ors., MANU/SC/0033/1970 : (1970) 3 SCC 140 that "readiness and willingness" cannot be treated as a straight jacket formula. This has to be determined from the entirety of the facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned. It is settled law that even in the absence of specific plea by the opposite party, it is the mandate of the statute that plaintiff has to comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and when there is non-compliance with this statutory 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."
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - R Mala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next