- Case
- SANGITA SINHA v. BHAWANA BHARDWAJ (Supreme Court of India, 04-04-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Specific Relief Act.
Specific Relief Act, 1963: The judgment extensively discusses the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly in the context of specific performance of contracts. Section 16(c) is cited, emphasizing the mandatory requirement for the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The judgment refers to Sections 20, 21, 22, and 23 of the Act, noting that these sections, along with Forms 47/48 of Appendices A to C of the Code of Civil Procedure, are part of the statutory requirements for granting specific performance. The court emphasizes that specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief, referencing the Act prior to the 2018 Amendment. The judgment also discusses the impact of Section 16(c) on the need for both pleading and proving readiness and willingness.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment references Forms 47/48 of Appendices A to C of the Code of Civil Procedure in conjunction with Sections 16(c), 20, 21, 22, and 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, stating that these are part of the statutory requirements for granting specific performance. It also mentions Order VII Rule 1, CPC, regarding the requirements for filing a plaint, and Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC, concerning the rejection of a plaint if the suit is barred by law. The judgment discusses the jurisdictional aspects related to maintainability of a suit, referencing Section 9, CPC, and the trial court's obligation to inquire into jurisdictional facts.
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of "sine qua non" in the context of specific performance, stating that the existence of a valid agreement is a prerequisite for granting such relief. It also addresses the concept of "jurisdictional fact" and its importance in determining the maintainability of a suit. The principle of suppression of material facts is discussed, stating that a party seeking a discretionary remedy must come to court with full disclosure. The judgment also touches upon the concept of "locus standi" in relation to filing an appeal.
