The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that in suits for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract from its execution until decree, and that such suits must be filed strictly within the period specified under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court affirmed settled Supreme Court precedent, upholding the dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation and for lack of proven readiness/willingness. This decision is binding precedent within Chhattisgarh and of persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/253/2017 of Mohammad Firoz Vs Ajay Budhiya |
| CNR | CGHC010037352017 |
| Date of Registration | 22-05-2017 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled Supreme Court law; affirms trial court’s dismissal |
| Type of Law | Civil Law – Specific Relief (Specific Performance of Contract) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiff and defendant entered into a sale agreement for agricultural land on 06.05.2005; ₹20,000 advance paid; balance due at sale deed within one year; defendant failed to execute deed, allegedly avoided service; possession/dispossession disputed; earlier suit for injunction in 2007 filed (and dismissed 2009); present suit for specific performance filed on 30.10.2009. Defendants contended subsequent bona fide sales to third parties, denial of plaintiff’s possession or performance. Trial court found suit time-barred and plaintiff’s readiness/willingness not proven; suit dismissed. Appeal contested both findings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that mere averment of readiness/willingness is insufficient; courts will scrutinize conduct and evidence over the entire relevant period.
- Emphasizes “time is of the essence” where explicitly stated in agreement — limitation runs from expiry of fixed period, not from any later event.
- Suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance; subsequent events do not extend limitation.
- If plaintiff sues only for injunction first and not specific performance, separate later suit for specific performance may be time-barred if beyond limitation.
- Legal notices with no proven date or service will not substitute real evidence of readiness/willingness or extend limitation.
- Lawyers must document every step of performance or intent (such as formal notices, payment records, efforts to get deed executed) and strictly comply with timelines.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first examined the pleadings, evidence, and terms of the agreement; agreement required sale deed to be executed within one year, making time the essence of contract.
- Analysed Supreme Court law (Sangita Sinha, Gomathinayagam Pillai etc.) holding that “readiness and willingness” are both distinct and continuous requirements.
- Found plaintiff’s conduct did not demonstrate continuous readiness/willingness; specifically, no steps shown within one year to enforce the contract, no definitive evidence of sending notice, and no corroborative evidence.
- Emphasized, per Supreme Court law, that readiness/willingness must be proven by conduct and attending circumstances, not merely pleaded.
- Examined limitation under Article 54 — since contract fixed period of one year, time began to run from expiry of that period (i.e., 06.05.2006); suit filed 30.10.2009, hence time-barred.
- Reiterated that neither desire to perform post-limitation nor pendency of other cases (such as earlier suit for injunction) extend or suspend the limitation period for specific performance.
- Affirmed trial court’s findings on both limitation and failure of readiness/willingness, dismissing the appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Plaintiff)
- The trial court erred in holding suit barred by limitation; findings unsustainable in law and fact.
- Plaintiff had always been ready/willing, as shown by pleadings, evidence, and conduct.
- Once execution of sale agreement was proved, trial court should not have dismissed suit for supposed want of readiness/willingness or limitation.
Respondent (Respondents 7 & 8; other respondents unrepresented)
- Supported trial court’s findings on both merits and limitation.
- Agreement dated 06.05.2005 required execution of deed within one year; no attempt shown by plaintiff in that period.
- Plaintiff filed only an injunction suit in 2007 against cultivators, not the owner, and did not seek specific performance until much later.
- Legal notice relied on by plaintiff undated; no proof of actual service or action within time; no corroborative evidence.
- Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any real intention or timely steps to seek specific performance.
Factual Background
Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 entered into a written agreement on 06.05.2005 for sale of specified land, with time fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed within one year. An advance of ₹20,000 was paid, balance to be paid on execution. Defendant No.1 allegedly absconded and did not execute sale deed; meanwhile, third parties took or received possession. Plaintiff first filed only an injunction suit in 2007 against others (not the owner), dismissed in 2009. Present specific performance suit filed 30.10.2009, after expiration of contractual and limitation period. Defendants contested plaintiff’s readiness and possession, asserting subsequent legitimate sale/purchase by third parties.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act: Plaintiff must prove “readiness and willingness” throughout; the Court interpreted this strictly, requiring proof by Plaintiff’s conduct, not just pleadings.
- Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963: Suit for specific performance must be filed within 3 years of the date fixed for performance in the contract, or if no date fixed, when performance is refused.
- Court confirmed that where contract fixes a time for execution, limitation runs from expiry of that date, not any later notice or step.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – High Court closely followed and applied established Supreme Court precedent on readiness/willingness and Article 54 limitation in specific performance suits.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Limitation period strictly applied; requirement for timely filing underscored.