In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale is the omission to state in the plaint that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract fatal to suit? Discuss.
Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites.
Question: In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale is the omission to state in the plaint that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract fatal to suit? Discuss. [UPHJS 2000, BIHAR J 1987.] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale is the omission to state in the plaint that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract fatal to...
Question: In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale is the omission to state in the plaint that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract fatal to suit? Discuss. [UPHJS 2000, BIHAR J 1987.]
Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale is the omission to state in the plaint that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract fatal to suit? Discuss.]
Answer
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act states that in a suit for Specific performance of contracts, the plaintiff must plead and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract continuously between the date of the contract and the date of hearing of the suit.
Further, Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC allows the court to permit amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings to ensure the determination of the real question in controversy between the parties. This provision provides flexibility in amending the plaint or written statement to rectify any defects or omissions in the pleadings. If the plaintiff omitted to expressly state their readiness and willingness to perform in the original pleading, they can seek to amend the plaint to include this crucial information. The court, considering the circumstances, has the discretion to allow such amendments in order to render complete justice.
In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, the plaintiff seeks a court order compelling the defendant to fulfill their obligations under the contract. One of the key requirements for the success of such a suit is the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. However, the omission to explicitly state in the plaint (the written statement of the plaintiff's claims) that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform their obligations does not necessarily prove fatal to the suit. Let's discuss this matter in more detail.
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff typically needs to establish that they have fulfilled or are ready and willing to fulfill their part of the contract. This requirement demonstrates the plaintiff's genuine intention to carry out their obligations and ensures that specific performance would not be an unfair or inequitable remedy. The principle of mutuality comes into play, which means that both parties must be equally bound by the contract and equally capable of performing it.
While it is generally advisable to explicitly state in the plaint that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the omission to do so does not necessarily result in the suit being dismissed. The court will look at the overall circumstances of the case and consider whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform.
The court may take into account the conduct and actions of the plaintiff before and during the proceedings, as well as any other relevant evidence presented. If the plaintiff can demonstrate that they have consistently expressed their willingness to perform the contract and have taken concrete steps towards fulfilling their obligations, the court may still consider the suit for specific performance.
As held in Ramesh Chandra Chandiok v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal, AIR 1971 SC 1238,
"Readiness and willingness cannot be treated as a strait-jacket formula. These have to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned.”
Therefore, while Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC allows for amendments to correct any omissions in the pleading, Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act emphasizes the necessity of establishing readiness and willingness to perform for the court to grant specific performance of the contract.
Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
- CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X
Mayank Shekhar
Mayank is an alumnus of the prestigious Faculty of Law, Delhi University. Under his leadership, Legal Bites has been researching and developing resources through blogging, educational resources, competitions, and seminars.
