Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an agreement for sale of immovable property dated 12.10.1994, where the respondent agreed to sell land and factory premises to the petitioner for Rs.4,38,000, with Rs.1,00,000 paid as earnest money. The date for performance was fixed as 07.10.1996. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 12.11.1996 claiming he approached the respondent on the due date but was told about pending litigation. The petitioner filed a civil suit on 13.10.1999 seeking a mandatory injunction to direct the respondent to execute the sale deed after receiving balance consideration, valuing the suit at Rs.250 and paying fixed court fee of Rs.25. The respondent filed a written statement denying the agreement and questioning maintainability. The Trial Court framed issues including whether the suit was maintainable in its present form. On an application by the respondent, the Trial Court by order dated 09.08.2003 held that the suit was actually one for specific performance and directed the petitioner to pay deficit court fee, which the petitioner complied with. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 03.02.2006. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree on 02.01.2013, and the High Court dismissed the second appeal on 20.05.2016. The Supreme Court considered two main issues: whether payment of deficit court fee under Section 149 CPC could cure the limitation defect, and whether the plaintiff had shown readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court held that the suit was originally filed as a mandatory injunction beyond the limitation period of three years from 07.10.1996, and the clever ploy of couching the relief as mandatory injunction and later paying deficit court fee could not be allowed to circumvent limitation. The Court also noted that no issue was framed on readiness and willingness, and the plaintiff's conduct did not demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the decisions of the lower appellate courts.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Court Fee - Section 149 CPC - Deficit Court Fee - Payment of deficit court fee under Section 149 CPC does not cure the defect of limitation when the suit was originally filed as a suit for mandatory injunction beyond the period of limitation and was later treated as a suit for specific performance. The court held that a clever ploy to circumvent limitation by couching the relief as mandatory injunction and later paying deficit court fee cannot be allowed. (Paras 6-8) B) Specific Relief - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Continuous Readiness and Willingness - The plaintiff must show continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of the agreement till the date of the decree. Issuing a legal notice and executing an affidavit before the Sub-Registrar on the last date fixed for performance is not sufficient to prove readiness and willingness after three years when the plaint was presented. (Para 9) C) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 Limitation Act, 1963 - Period of Limitation - The suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance. In this case, the date fixed was 07.10.1996, and the plaint was presented on 13.10.1999, which is beyond three years. The suit was therefore barred by limitation. (Paras 6, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit originally filed as a suit for mandatory injunction beyond the period of limitation can be treated as a suit for specific performance by paying deficit court fee under Section 149 CPC, and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, thereby dismissing the suit for specific performance.
Law Points
- Section 149 CPC does not cure limitation defect when suit originally filed as mandatory injunction beyond limitation
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act requires continuous readiness and willingness
- Suit for specific performance must be filed within limitation period from date fixed for performance
