Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Jitendra Nath Roy vs Sm. Maheswari Bose on 6 August, 1964
This
would show that at the material point of time she did not
have the necessary wherewithal to pay the balance of
consideration and to take the conveyance and this would
provide tell-tale evidence to explain her conduct in putting
forth one or the other impediment in the path of performance
of the contract. If in the background of this evidence the
High Court reached the conclusion that she did not have the
necessary wherewithal with her to pay the balance of
consideration and take the deed of conveyance, one cannot
take any exception to it. But in this connection Mr.
Chatterjee contended that the plaintiff seeking specific
performance of the contract is. not required to show that
she has at all material time necessary cash with her to per-
form her part of the contract. It is enough if the-
plaintiff can show that she was in a position to raise the
money required at or about the time when the contract was to
be; performed and she discharges the obligation of proving
readiness and willingness so far as the financial aspect is
concerned. Reliance was placed on Jitendra Nath Roy v. Smt.
Maheswari Bose(1). Undoubtedly, the question would be,
(1) A.I.R. 1965 Calcutta 45.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Sm. Soudamini Das vs Nabalak Mia Bhuiya And Ors. on 13 November, 1930
Such a decree could never be said to be
preliminary decree. If defendant vendor was contesting the
right of the plaintiff to ask for 'specific performance and
that was concluded adverse to her and if the vendor wanted
to challenge the finding, it was incumbent upon her to
prefer an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.
Similarly, it is also not possible to entertain the
contention that the orders extending the time to deposit the
balance of consideration would result in amending the decree
and as the appeal is preferred after such last amendment the
appeal would be in time. Reliance was placed on Sm.
Soudamini Das v. Nabatak Mia Bhuiya and others,(1) but that
(1) A.I.R. 1931 Calcutta 578.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Jagat Dhish Bhargava vs Jawahar Lal Bhargava & Others on 5 December, 1960
decision would not assist the respondent and in fact the
High Court treated that fact as sufficient for extension of
time under s. 5. The decision in Jagat Dhish Bhargava v.
Jawarhar Lal Bhargava and others ( 1 ) proceeds on the basis
that litigant deserves- to be protected against the default
committed or negligence shown by the Court or its officers
in the discharge of their duties. In that case litigant had
applied for certified copy of the decree 'soon after
judgment I was pronounced but as the certified copy was not
given, appeal was filed without producing certified copy of
the decree and it was contended that under the relevant
rules appeal was not competent. Such is not the case.
Present respondent, if she wanted to question the decree
directing her to execute conveyance, ought to have preferred
appeal against the decree dated 30th April 1962. That has
not been done and obviously the appeal preferred on 11th
April 1968 was barred by limitation.