The General Manager, Pench Area, Parasia, M.P. and Anr. Vs. Barkan @ Kanhaiya
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2711 of 2001
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.12.1999 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 856 of 1996]
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.12.1999 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 856 of 1996]
Petitioner: The General Manager, Pench Area, Parasia, M.P. and Anr.
Respondent: Barkan @ Kanhaiya
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2711 of 2001
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.12.1999 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 856 of 1996]
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.12.1999 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 856 of 1996]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 13, 2007
Appearances:
Mr. Anip Sachthey and Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. B.K. Satija, Advocate for the Respondent.
Mr. B.K. Satija, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
Specific Relief
Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 14 – Specific performance – Lands acquired – Specific agreement to provide employment to four persons – Findings of courts below that only three persons given job – Defendant’s plea was that all four were employed – Supreme Court permitted defendants to place on record the document showing that son of plaintiff was employed on his request. Held that suit of plaintiff deserves to be dismissed and hence dismissed. (Paras 3-6)
Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 14 – Specific performance – Lands acquired – Specific agreement to provide employment to four persons – Findings of courts below that only three persons given job – Defendant’s plea was that all four were employed – Supreme Court permitted defendants to place on record the document showing that son of plaintiff was employed on his request. Held that suit of plaintiff deserves to be dismissed and hence dismissed. (Paras 3-6)
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of employment. According to the appellants, his lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of quarters for the employees.
3. Sale-deed was executed in respect of the land and there was specific provision in a preceding agreement that four persons were to be given employment. Allegation was that only three had been provided employment and in spite of assurance the defendants did not give the job to the plaintiffs.
4. Stand of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable. In fact, four persons have been given employment. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court accepted the position that three persons had been given jobs but held that no job was provided to the appellant. The Trial Court noticed that even though it was contended by the present appellants that one son of the plaintiff had been given a job, no document in that regard had been filed. The First Appellate Court and the High Court were of the same view.
5. The High Court held that the stand of the appellant that in view of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, suit for specific performance is not maintainable and is subject to certain exceptions. It was held that since there was a solemn promise to employ four persons the appellants should not be permitted to wriggle out the promise by taking the plea that Section 14 of the Act bars a suit of the nature filed.
6. By order dated March 31, 2000, this Court had permitted the appellants to file documents to show that the son of the respondent no.1 had been given appointment on his nomination. The same has been filed. Though this document was not part of the records of the Courts below, but other evidence was available to show that, in fact, son of respondent no.1 named ‘Guntoo’ was appointed at the request of respondent no.1. The document placed on record by the appellant pursuant to the order of this Court also clearly establishes this fact.
7. In that view of the matter the suit filed by respondent no.1 deserves to be dismissed and the orders of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the High Court in the Second Appeal deserve to be set aside which we direct.
8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of employment. According to the appellants, his lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of quarters for the employees.
3. Sale-deed was executed in respect of the land and there was specific provision in a preceding agreement that four persons were to be given employment. Allegation was that only three had been provided employment and in spite of assurance the defendants did not give the job to the plaintiffs.
4. Stand of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable. In fact, four persons have been given employment. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court accepted the position that three persons had been given jobs but held that no job was provided to the appellant. The Trial Court noticed that even though it was contended by the present appellants that one son of the plaintiff had been given a job, no document in that regard had been filed. The First Appellate Court and the High Court were of the same view.
5. The High Court held that the stand of the appellant that in view of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, suit for specific performance is not maintainable and is subject to certain exceptions. It was held that since there was a solemn promise to employ four persons the appellants should not be permitted to wriggle out the promise by taking the plea that Section 14 of the Act bars a suit of the nature filed.
6. By order dated March 31, 2000, this Court had permitted the appellants to file documents to show that the son of the respondent no.1 had been given appointment on his nomination. The same has been filed. Though this document was not part of the records of the Courts below, but other evidence was available to show that, in fact, son of respondent no.1 named ‘Guntoo’ was appointed at the request of respondent no.1. The document placed on record by the appellant pursuant to the order of this Court also clearly establishes this fact.
7. In that view of the matter the suit filed by respondent no.1 deserves to be dismissed and the orders of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the High Court in the Second Appeal deserve to be set aside which we direct.
8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
