Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit as Infructuous After Full Performance of Construction Contract. Specific Performance Claim Becomes Infructuous When Defendant Constructs and Hands Over All 532 Flats and Plaintiff Accepts Possession, Leaving No Issue for Adjudication Under Order XV Rule 1 CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 23
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development, filed a suit in 1989 against M/s. Shah Thakur & Sons and another defendant seeking declaration of validity of an agreement and specific performance thereof, along with ancillary reliefs including compensation and damages. The agreement required the defendants to construct 532 flats in 19 buildings for the plaintiff. The defendants completed construction and handed over possession of all flats: 380 flats in July 1990 and the remaining 152 flats on 22 January 1991. The plaintiff accepted possession. Thereafter, no dispute remained between the parties regarding the subject matter of the suit. However, instead of closing the suit, both parties continued to litigate over extraneous matters such as deposit of amounts, withdrawal under bank guarantees, and payment of interest. At the final hearing, both parties agreed that no evidence was required. The court observed that under Order XV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when parties are not at issue on any question of law or fact, the court may pronounce judgment at once. Since the defendants had fully performed their contractual obligations and the plaintiff had accepted performance, the suit had become infructuous. The court held that no further relief, including compensation or damages, could be granted because the plaintiff had already received what it was entitled to. Claims regarding interest on amounts deposited or withdrawn were extraneous to the suit and could not be agitated at the final hearing. The court also noted that interest under Section 34 CPC is payable only on the principal sum adjudged, and since no decree for principal sum was passed, no interest could be awarded. Consequently, the suit was dismissed as infructuous.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Suit becoming infructuous - Order XV Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Where parties are not at issue on any question of law or fact, the Court may pronounce judgment at once - In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to construct flats, once the defendant has constructed and handed over possession of all flats and the plaintiff has accepted them, nothing remains for adjudication and the suit is infructuous (Paras 2-4).

B) Interest - Post-filing interest - Section 34 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Interest under Section 34 CPC is payable only on the principal sum adjudged; where no decree for principal sum is passed, no interest can be awarded - Claims for interest on amounts deposited or withdrawn under bank guarantees are extraneous to the suit and cannot be agitated at final hearing (Paras 5-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the suit for specific performance and damages survives after the defendant has fully performed the contract and possession of all flats has been handed over and accepted by the plaintiff.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The suit is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Suit becomes infructuous upon full performance of contract
  • Order XV Rule 1 CPC allows judgment when parties not at issue
  • Interest under Section 34 CPC not applicable when no decree for principal sum
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 193

SUIT NO. 1495 OF 1989

2012-07-23

Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J.

2012:BHC-OS:9289

Mr. Praveer Diwan i/b. Kanga & Co. for the Plaintiff, Mr. Hansaria, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sarreen i/b. Denzil D'mello for Defendant No.1

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for declaration of validity of an agreement, specific performance, and ancillary reliefs including compensation and damages.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought declaration of validity of agreement, specific performance of construction of 532 flats, and compensation/damages.

Filing Reason

Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to perform the agreement for construction of flats.

Issues

Whether the suit for specific performance and damages survives after the defendant has fully performed the contract and possession of all flats has been handed over and accepted by the plaintiff.

Submissions/Arguments

Both parties agreed that no evidence need be led in the suit. Parties agitated over payment of interest on amounts deposited and withdrawn under bank guarantees.

Ratio Decidendi

When a defendant has fully performed its obligations under a contract and the plaintiff has accepted such performance, the suit for specific performance and damages becomes infructuous. Under Order XV Rule 1 CPC, the court may pronounce judgment at once when parties are not at issue. No ancillary relief, including interest under Section 34 CPC, can be granted when no principal sum is decreed.

Judgment Excerpts

The flats have been constructed. The possession of the flats have been handed over by the Plaintiff to the Defendants; 380 flats were handed over in July 1990 and the remaining 152 flats on 22nd January, 1991. Upon such possession being given to the Plaintiff nothing would survive in the suit for adjudication by the Court. Where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment. When the Defendants have done whatever they were bound to do under the contract and have performed their part of the contract and the Plaintiff has accepted the act and acted upon it, the Plaintiff cannot be further compensated.

Procedural History

Suit filed in 1989. Possession of 380 flats handed over in July 1990 and remaining 152 flats on 22 January 1991. Various applications and orders regarding deposit of amounts, withdrawal under bank guarantees, and payment of interest were made over the years. At final hearing on 9 May 2012, parties agreed no evidence was required. Judgment pronounced on 23 July 2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XV Rule 1, Section 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit as Infructuous After Full Performance of Construction Contract. Specific Performance Claim Becomes Infructuous When Defendant Constructs and Hands Over All 532 Flats and Plaintiff Accepts Possession, Leaving No Issue ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Land Grant Case: Upholds Resumption of Granted Land Under Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 Despite Delay. The court held that the absence of a limitation period in the Act and the welfare nature of the legislation al...