Admittedly, unlike Section 24 of the Pre-emption Act, which caste a duty upon the Court in a suit for pre-emption to require the plaintiff to deposit in Court 1/3rd of the sale price, there is no provision in the Specific Relief Act which upon filing of the suit seeking specific performance of an agreement in respect of an immovable property cast any duty on the Court or requires the vendee to first deposit the balance sale consideration, however, since the law of Specific Relief is based on the principles of equity and further that the relief of specific performance is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, therefore, the Court in order to ensure the bona fide of the vendee at any stage of the proceedings may put him to terms.
Additionally, Section 24(b) of the Specific Relief Act, details the contracts which cannot be specifically enforced provides that specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who has become incapable of performing or violates, any essential term of the contract that on his part remains to be performed. Therefore, the vendee while seeking specific performance/enforcement of a condition to be performed by the vendor must state that either he has performed all the conditions which under the contract he was bound to perform and/or that at all times right from the date of the agreement down to the date of filing the suit he has been ready and willing to perform/fulfill his part of the deal. He is not only supposed to narrate in the plaint his readiness and willingness at all material time to fulfill his part of the agreement but also is bound to demonstrate through supporting evidence such as pay orders, Bank statement or other material, his ability to fulfill his part of the deal leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court that the proceedings seeking specific performances have been initiated to cover up his default or to gain time to generate resources or create ability to fulfill his part of the deal. It is in that pursuit that the Court to weigh his capacity to perform and intention to purchase may direct the vendee to deposit the balance sale consideration. The readiness and willingness on the part of the vendee to perform his part of obligation also prima-facie demonstrates that the non- completion of the contract was not the fault of the vendee and the contract would have been completed, if it has not been renounced by the vendor.
it is to be kept in mind that strict non- compliance of the directions of the Court by a vendee to deposit the balance sale price while keeping the lis of specific performance alive has totally different consequence than the cases where the Court while directing the balance price terminates the lis or where the direction to deposit the balance sale price are issued at the instance of the vendor who has shown his readiness to perform his part of the contract. In the first instance, the Court does not lose its jurisdiction to review its order by extending time for depositing the balance sale price for the simple reason that the vendee on the face of denial or plea of termination of agreement has only to establish his bona fide / seriousness to standby his part of the commitment, whereas, in the second instance the Court ordinarily becomes functus officio and loses its authority on the lis and consequently has no jurisdiction to extend time for the deposit of the balance sale price. In the instant case not only the lis was alive but the order directing deposit of balance sale price did not stipulate the consequences for non-deposit which normally are the vacation of injunctive order or the dismissal of the suit, consequently, the order of the High Court non-suiting the appellant cannot be sustained and therefore, requires interference by setting it aside.
C.A.1767/2019
Muhammad Asif Awan v. Dawood Khan, etc
0 Comments