Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., filed a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, seeking review of a judgment dated 25 August 2022 passed by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. That judgment had allowed an appeal against the High Court of Telangana's judgment dated 23 April 2021, which had partially decreed a suit for specific performance in favour of the petitioner. The background of the case involves agreements to sell land executed in 1994 and 1997. The original owners entered into an agreement to sell 127.29 acres to vendors in 1994. On 26 March 1997, the vendors executed an agreement to sell 38.15 acres to the petitioner for Rs 38,37,500, with an advance of Rs 11,30,000 paid. A second agreement to sell 1.33 acres was executed on 27 March 1997. The petitioner claimed to have paid substantial consideration and sought specific performance. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 12 December 2010, holding that the petitioner failed to prove readiness and willingness, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court partially decreed the suit, directing registration proportionate to the consideration paid. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 25 August 2022, allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's decree, restoring the Trial Court's dismissal. The petitioner sought review of that judgment. The legal issues considered were whether the judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record, whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether the petitioner proved readiness and willingness, and whether the doctrine of lis pendens applied. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court erred in holding that time was of the essence and that the suit was barred by limitation. The respondents contended that the review petition was an attempt to re-argue the case. The Court analyzed the grounds for review, noting that the review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the case. On limitation, the Court held that the suit was filed beyond three years from the date fixed for performance (three months from 26 March 1997), and the first legal notice was issued after the limitation period had expired. On readiness and willingness, the Court found that the petitioner failed to prove continuous readiness, as a cheque was dishonoured and there was a delay in issuing legal notices. The Court also held that the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to protect a transferee pendente lite if the transferor had no valid title or the suit is dismissed. The Court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition.
Headnote
A) Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 - The petitioner sought review of a judgment allowing the appeal against the High Court's partial decree for specific performance. The Court held that the review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-argue the case. No error apparent on the face of the record was found. (Paras 1, 17-24) B) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The dishonour of a cheque and the delay in issuing legal notices indicated lack of readiness. (Paras 25-31) C) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was filed beyond three years from the date fixed for performance (three months from 26 March 1997). The first legal notice was issued after the limitation period had expired. The suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 19-24) D) Lis Pendens - Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to protect a transferee pendente lite if the transferor had no valid title or the suit is dismissed. (Paras 32-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of this Court dated 25 August 2022 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record which warrants the exercise of the review jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 25 August 2022. The Court found that the suit was barred by limitation, the petitioner failed to prove readiness and willingness, and the doctrine of lis pendens did not apply. The review petitions were dismissed.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on face of record
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Limitation
- Lis pendens
