Author: J Shuruthi
(1999) 8 SCC 396
Justice D.P. Mohaparto
Justice S.Saghir Ahmad
This appeal was filed by the appellant against a decree of specific performance of the suit which was passed because they failed to file a written statement.
The case was filed by the Respondent No.1 of the present case against the appellant and Respondent No.2 for specific performance of a sale agreement in New Delhi. The opposite parties pleaded eight weeks time to file written statement.
Though after giving several amount of time, written statements were not filed. Therefore, the court decreed the suit for specific performance of the suit in favour of the respondent no.1 as under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and he was directed to pay a sum of 3 lakhs within 6 weeks. This was the balance amount of sale consideration.
The present appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court after the High Court rejected the review application filed by the appellant.
E) ISSUES AND FACTS OF LAW
i) Whether the decree can be passed for specific performance against appellant merely on the ground of not filing the written statement?
The Supreme Court in the present case allowed the appeal and ordered to set aside the judgment granted by the High Court and remand the case back to the High court to render a fresh judgement and also allowed the appellant and the respondent no 2 to file the written statement within 15th October 1999 and when they fail to do so, the decree that has been earlier passed by the High Court will stand.
The court was of the opinion that they should not grant leave because the sale deed was already executed by the commissioner appointed by the High Court in favour of Respondent No.2. The matter in the present case was not merely about the non- filing of the written statement but also the how the court must proceed when no written statement has been filed and how the lower courts must function when the same kind of matter arises between them.