This case pertains to the review petition filed by Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. challenging the Supreme Court’s previous judgment. The petitioner sought specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property, which the Supreme Court initially denied based on perceived non-compliance with time-bound obligations in the contract and limitation issues. The review focuses on interpreting contractual clauses, limitation period applicability, and specific performance eligibility.

Background

• Initial Agreement (1994): Original owners entered into an agreement to sell approximately 127.29 acres to certain vendors, who took possession without receiving a sale deed.
• Petitioner's Agreement (1997): The vendors agreed to sell 38.15 acres to the petitioner for ₹38,37,500, with part-payment of ₹11,30,000. A further agreement on 1.33 acres was made separately.
• Dispute Initiation (2000): The petitioner issued a notice demanding sale deed execution, which the respondents contested.

Court Judgments

1. Trial Court: Dismissed the suit for specific performance, noting the petitioner's alleged inability to pay the balance and issues with possession claims.
2. High Court: Partly allowed the appeal, finding the petitioner's claims on readiness valid and decreeing specific performance proportionate to consideration paid.
3. Supreme Court (First Appeal): Overturned High Court decision, emphasizing the clause implying time as essential and the suit as time-barred.

Issues in Review Petition

1. Interpretation of Contract Clauses - Dispute over whether the contract implied strict time-bound obligations on the petitioner.
2. Limitation Period - Examination of whether the suit was time-barred.
3. Specific Performance - Determination of whether petitioner was ready and willing to perform as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

Legal Analysis

Key Legal Provisions:

• Article 137, Constitution of India - Judicial review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
• Order XLVII Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules 2013 - Grounds for review jurisdiction.
• Article 54, Limitation Act 1963 - Limitation period for specific performance.
• Section 10, Specific Relief Act (Pre-2018 Amendment) - Discretionary grounds for specific performance.
• Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act - Requirement for petitioner’s readiness and willingness to perform.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court, upon review, found errors in interpreting certain contract clauses which incorrectly suggested that time was of essence. Consequently, the court concluded that the suit was not time-barred. Additionally, the petitioner demonstrated readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations, warranting specific performance.

Subjects:

Property Law, Specific Performance, Contract Interpretation, Limitation Act, Supreme Court