LADLI PARSHAD BHARGAVA ETC Vs. MISRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Misri Devi respondent filed a suit for specific performance and in the alternative for damages. The learned trial Court partly decreed this claim. It allowed the respondent damages to the extent of Rs. 5,200/- but declined to grant the decree for specific performance. The respondent went up in appeal. The learned lower appellate Court modified the decree granted by the learned trial Court and ordered the specific performance of the contract. The defendants-appellants have come up in this second appeal.

(2.) When the case came up before me earlier on February 23, 1980, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that they were ready and willing to perform the contract and that the learned lower Appellate Court had wrongly disallowed the appellants to raise these pleas. On the basis of this submission, I set aside the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court and remitted the case to it for submitting a report on this point. The report has been received. The learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, who heard the case, has recorded the following finding of fact :-

(3.) Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the damages had been agreed upon between the parties, in the event of non-performance of the contract, the Court below should have relied upon Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act and should have declined the relief for specific performance.