- (1.) The suit of the Plaintiff Respondent for specific performance was dismissed by the trial court. This decree was reversed by the first court of appeal and in consequence the suit stood decreed. The defendent Appellant has now appealed to this Court.
(2.) The only question which has been urged in support of this appeal is that the plaint does not conform to the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and should have been thrown out on that ground alone. The said provision of law in so far as it is relevant may now be read out: 16. Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person: (a)(b)(c) Who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contracts which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the Defendant. Explanation: For the purposes of Clause (c)-(i) where a contract involved the payment of money, it is not essential for the Plaintiff to actually tender to the Defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; (ii) the Plaintiff must aver performance of; or readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction.
(3.) In support of this contention the Appellants' counsel has referred to a number of decisions decided by this Court and also by the Supreme Court of India. The case cited by him shall be referred to later in this judgment.;