Summary
The Court upheld refusal of specific performance because the plaintiff failed to plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness under the law applicable to the suit. Absence of a corresponding defence objection did not relieve that burden. A belated appellate amendment inserting the formula would not cure the substantive failure. The High Court also properly declined to entertain an unformulated additional substantial question of law without exceptional, recorded reasons.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff established continuous readiness and willingness despite the absence of a specific defence objection.
- Whether the belated amendment or an additional question in second appeal warranted relief.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(c) and Explanation, as applicable to the suit, Specific Relief Act, 1963Required pleading and proof of continuous readiness and willingness, while recognising that no prescribed verbal formula or actual tender was required. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Sections 100 and 101, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Confined second appeal to substantial questions of law and required strong, recorded reasons for an additional question under Section 100(5). (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
Held
- The applicable Section 16(c) requirement was substantive, not a demand for a particular formula. The plaintiff’s conduct, pleadings and evidence as a whole had to establish continuous readiness and willingness, independently of any objection in the written statement. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Neither the plaint nor the plaintiff’s evidence contained the necessary substantive assertions. The trial court’s assumption did not establish compliance, so the suit failed on that ground. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- In these circumstances, the amendment sought only after the defect was raised in first appeal attempted to insert phraseology without curing the failure of proof. Refusal of that belated amendment was justified. (¶ 18)
- Section 100(5) does not dispense with formulation of substantial questions of law. An additional question requires exceptional circumstances and strong reasons specifically recorded; none justified reopening the amendment issue here. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
Result
Appeal dismissed; refusal of specific performance by the first appellate court and High Court upheld.