Case: ATMA RAM Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH

been paid in the first instance. 6. But in this case, the question was not merely one of limitation. As we have stated earlier, the suit agreement of sale was dated 12.10.1994. According to the petitioner, the last date fixed for the performance of the obligations under the contract, was 7.10.1996. A legal notice was issued by the petitioner on 12.11.1996. But the plaint itself was presented only on 13.10.1999, which was beyond three years of the date 7.10.1996, fixed under the agreement of sale for the performance of the contract. (Though the petitioner has claimed before us that the plaint was presented on 3.10.1999, the copy of the judgment as well as the decree of the Trial Court indicate the date of presentation of the plaint as 13.10.1999). The relief sought in the plaint as it was originally presented, was for a mandatory injunction to direct the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and to get a document of transfer effected in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner/plaintiff was obviously conscious of the nature of the relief prayed for by him. This is why he valued the relief claimed in the suit at Rs.250/- and paid a fixed court fee of Rs.25/-. The respondent took an objection in his written statement, to the maintainability of the suit, in the form in which it was filed. Therefore, the Trial Court also framed an issue as to whether the suit was not maintainable in the present form, as issue No.5. It was only after issues were framed on 12.10.2002 that the Trial Court took up the application filed by the respondent for the dismissal of the suit. It is in that application that the Trial Court passed the order dated 09.08.2003 permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee by treating the prayer made as one for specific performance. Instead of addressing the issue as to whether the petitioner could indirectly seek specific performance of an agreement of sale, by couching the relief as one for mandatory injunction and paying a fixed court fee as payable in a suit for mandatory injunction, the Trial Court, by a convoluted logic, chose to treat the suit as one for specific performance and permitted the petitioner to pay deficit court fee. 7. As a matter of fact, if the suit was actually one for specific performance, the petitioner ought to have at least valued the suit on the basis of the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement. But he did not. If the suit was only for mandatory injunction (which it actually was), the only recourse open to the petitioner was to seek an amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC. If such an application had been filed, it would have either been dismissed on the ground of limitation (K.Raheja Constructions Ltd., vs. Alliance Ministries 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 17 ) or even if allowed, the prayer for specific performance, inserted by way of amendment, would not have been, as a matter of course, taken as relating back to the date of the plaint (Tarlok Singh vs. Vijay Kumar 1996 (8) SCC 367 , Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit vs. Ramesh Chander 2010 (14) SCC 596 ). Therefore, a short-cut was found by the petitioner/plaintiff to retain the plaint as such, but to seek permission to pay deficit court fee, as though what was filed in the first instance was actually a suit for specific performance. Such a dubious approach should not be allowed especially in a suit for specific performance, as the relief of specific performance is discretionary under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 8. It may be true that the approach of the High Court in non suiting the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground of limitation, despite the original defect having been cured and the same having attained finality, may be faulty. But we would not allow the petitioner to take advantage of the same by taking shelter under Section 149 CPC, especially when he filed the suit (after more than three years of the date fixed under the agreement of sale) only as one for mandatory injunction, valued the same as such and paid court fee accordingly, but chose to pay proper court fee after being confronted with an application for the dismissal of the suit. Clever ploys cannot always pay dividends. 9. Coming to the second aspect revolving around Section 16(c), a look at the judgment of the Trial Court would show that no issue was framed on the question of readiness and willingness on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The fact that the petitioner chose to issue a legal notice dated 12.11.1996 and the fact that the petitioner created an alibi in the form of an affidavit executed before the Sub-Registrar on 7.10.1996 (marked as Exhibit P-2) to show that he was present before the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of completion of the transaction, within the time stipulated for its performance, was not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner continued to be ready and willing even after three years, on 13.10.1999 when the plaint was presented. No explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner for the long delay of three years, in filing the suit (on 13.10.1999) after issuing a legal notice on 12.11.1996. The conduct of a plaintiff is very crucial in a suit for specific performance. A person who issues a legal notice on 12.11.1996 claiming readiness and willingness, but who institutes a suit only on 13.10.1999 and that too only with a prayer for a mandatory injunction carrying a fixed court fee relatable only to the said relief, will not be entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance. 10. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the first Appellate Court rightly reversed the decree of specific performance granted by the Trial Court and the High Court was right in upholding the judgment of the first Appellate Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It was only after issues were framed on 12.10.2002 that the Trial Court took up the application filed by the respondent for the dismissal of the suit. It is in that application that the Trial Court passed the order dated 09.08.2003 permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee by treating the prayer made as one for specific performance. Instead of addressing the issue as to whether the petitioner could indirectly seek specific performance of an agreement of sale, by couching the relief as one for mandatory injunction and paying a fixed court fee as payable in a suit for mandatory injunction, the Trial Court, by a convoluted logic, chose to treat the suit as one for specific performance and permitted the petitioner to pay deficit court fee7. As a matter of fact, if the suit was actually one for specific performance, the petitioner ought to have at least valued the suit on the basis of the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement. But he did not. If the suit was only for mandatory injunction (which it actually was), the only recourse open to the petitioner was to seek an amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC. If such an application had been filed, it would have either been dismissed on the ground of limitation (K.Raheja Constructions Ltd., vs. Alliance Ministries 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 17 ) or even if allowed, the prayer for specific performance, inserted by way of amendment, would not have been, as a matter of course, taken as relating back to the date of the plaint (Tarlok Singh vs. Vijay Kumar 1996 (8) SCC 367   , Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit vs. Ramesh Chander 2010 (14) SCC 596   ). Therefore, a short-cut was found by the petitioner/plaintiff to retain the plaint as such, but to seek permission to pay deficit court fee, as though what was filed in the first instance was actually a suit for specific performance. Such a dubious approach should not be allowed especially in a suit for specific performance, as the relief of specific performance is discretionary under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 19638. It may be true that the approach of the High Court in non suiting the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground of limitation, despite the original defect having been cured and the same having attained finality, may be faulty. But we would not allow the petitioner to take advantage of the same by taking shelter under Section 149 CPC, especially when he filed the suit (after more than three years of the date fixed under the agreement of sale) only as one for mandatory injunction, valued the same as such and paid court fee accordingly, but chose to pay proper court fee after being confronted with an application for the dismissal of the suit. Clever ploys cannot always pay dividends9. Coming to the second aspect revolving around Section 16(c), a look at the judgment of the Trial Court would show that no issue was framed on the question of readiness and willingness on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The fact that the petitioner chose to issue a legal notice dated 12.11.1996 and the fact that the petitioner created an alibi in the form of an affidavit executed before the Sub-Registrar on 7.10.1996 (marked as Exhibit P-2) to show that he was present before the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of completion of the transaction, within the time stipulated for its performance, was not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner continued to be ready and willing even after three years, on 13.10.1999 when the plaint was presented. No explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner for the long delay of three years, in filing the suit (on 13.10.1999) after issuing a legal notice on 12.11.1996. The conduct of a plaintiff is very crucial in a suit for specific performance. A person who issues a legal notice on 12.11.1996 claiming readiness and willingness, but who institutes a suit only on 13.10.1999 and that too only with a prayer for a mandatory injunction carrying a fixed court fee relatable only to the said relief, will not be entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance10. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the first Appellate Court rightly reversed the decree of specific performance granted by the Trial Court and the High Court was right in upholding the judgment of the first Appellate CourtIt is true that Section 149 CPC confers a discretion upon the Court to allow a person, at any stage, to pay the whole or part of the court fee actually payable on the document, but which has not been paid. Once the Court exercises such a discretion and payment of court fee is made in accordance with the said decision, the document, under Section 149, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance.