(A) Specific Performance of the Agreement – Ready and willing to perform his Part of the Contract – Second appeal by defendant – Held: The plaintiff has to show that he was prepared to carry out those parts of the contract to their logical end as depended upon his performance. The plaintiff has to prove that he had the requisite amount and he had taken all the steps for the execution of the sale deed – The defendant filed an appeal before this Court; however, no application for the stay of the execution of the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court was filed. Around 5 years have elapsed since the passing of the decree and it is not shown that the plaintiff had taken any steps to get the sale deed executed. These circumstances make it doubtful that the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The conclusions drawn by learned Courts below that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract are not based upon evidence – Appeal allowed – Plaintiff suit dismissed. (Para 27, 31, 32)
(B) Time as essence of Contract – Specific Pleadings – Whether time is of the essence of the contract or not we are satisfied that the High Court was in error in allowing the respondents to raise this question in the absence of specific pleadings or issues raised before the trial court and when the case of time being the essence of the contract was not put forward by the respondents in the trial court. (Para 25)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 188 HP
Shanti Devi Vs. Pritam Singh
RSA No.209 of 2019-Decided on 20-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-188-HP.pdf
