Punjab & Haryana High Court upholds dismissal of suit for specific performance, cites lack of readiness and limitation bar

Case Name: Sedhu Ram (Deceased) through LRs v. Bihari Lal (Deceased) through LRs & Another
Date of Judgment: October 08, 2025
Citation: RSA-1415-1992
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the regular second appeal filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff, upholding concurrent findings of the courts below that the suit for possession based on an agreement to sell dated July 15, 1981, was not maintainable. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that the suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well as by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Summary: The appellant-plaintiff claimed possession of one-third share in agricultural land measuring 35 kanals 16 marlas situated in Village Khor, Tehsil Narnaul, on the basis of an agreement to sell executed by defendant Bihari Lal on July 15, 1981. As per the agreement, the plaintiff was to pay ₹5,040 and the co-purchaser ₹4,500 for discharging the defendant’s debts to creditors within three years, after which the sale deed would be executed. The plaintiff alleged he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had issued notices to creditors, but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed.

The defendant denied execution, claiming the document was fabricated and that a previous suit based on the same agreement had been withdrawn in 1986 without liberty to file afresh. The trial court held that though the agreement was proved through the testimony of the scribe and attesting witnesses, it was not enforceable as the plaintiff had failed to make payment within the stipulated three years and thus was not ready and willing to perform his obligations. It also held the suit barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC and dismissed it on September 21, 1991. The first appellate court affirmed the decision, adding that the suit was time-barred, as limitation commenced from July 15, 1981 — the date fixed for performance.

Justice Deepak Gupta concurred with the lower courts, citing P. D’Souza v. Shondrilo Naidu (2004) 6 SCC 649, K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC 1, and Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1987) 1 SCC 5, holding that failure to prove continuous readiness disentitles the plaintiff from specific performance, and withdrawal of the earlier suit without permission bars a fresh one.

Decision: The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, holding the plaintiff’s suit barred both by limitation and procedural default. It reiterated that equitable relief of specific performance cannot be granted when the plaintiff fails to fulfill contractual obligations within the stipulated time. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.