In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India reviewed a petition in a case focusing on the RPC aspect. The case involved intricate arguments and considerations related to the appeal process. Stay informed about the latest updates on this case and the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Facts
- Suit No 1298 of 1999 dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.11.2014, resulting in automatic vacation of interim injunction.
- Specific performance suit filed on 15.10.2010 against several members of a family, with 8 defendants.
- Defendant No.5 did not lead evidence or cross-examine the plaintiff.
- Trial Court’s judgment on 07.11.2012 rejected specific performance, directed refund of Rs.2,26,40,370.
- First Appeal filed by the plaintiff on 03.04.2013.
- Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1-8 on 22.03.2007.
- Inter se litigation between defendants of family, partition suit O.S. No 1298 of 1999 filed by Respondent No.1.
- Admission of MoU in written statement by Respondent No.1.
- Appeal against trial Court judgment in specific performance suit set aside by High Court, decreeing specific performance in favor of plaintiff.
- Only Defendant No.5 (Respondent No.1) filed a written statement on 04.02.2011.
Also Read: Judgment on Contract Dispute: PSA Mumbai Investments PTE. Ltd. v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust
Arguments
- The Respondent No.1 filed a review petition against the judgment dated 14.02.2018 stating that he had not appointed the counsel who represented him in the High Court appeal.
- The review petition was allowed, and the High Court recalled its judgment and restored the appeal as the counsel appeared without a written Vakalatnama.
- The appellant argued that the non-filing of Vakalatnama should not be significant as it could be an irregularity that can be cured later.
- The appellant’s counsel contended that the High Court was incorrect in allowing the review petition as there was no indication in the petition that the arguments made by the counsel were against the client’s interest.
- The only argument that should have been made in the appeal was regarding the property’s alienation subject to specific performance suit due to an interim injunction.
- The argument made by ARG_RESPONDENT was not presented during the appeal.
- According to ARG_RESPONDENT, if the argument had been made, the outcome of the appeal would have been unfavorable to decreeing specific performance.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment: Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Guravs
Analysis
- Service was effected on Respondent No.1 by affixation on the door of his residence as he was not found at the address of residence.
- Oral assurance was given by all the brothers, including Respondent No.1, to engage the services of Mandar Soman, Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.1.
- Mr. Dani, learned Senior Advocate, made submissions on behalf of Respondent No.1 regarding the specific performance suit, unstamped MoU, and the inequitable enforcement of specific performance in favor of the plaintiff.
- Service to the respondents was considered complete by a formal order dated 22.02.2016.
- Paper publication for service was done in the newspaper ‘Prabhat’ on 18.01.2016.
- Appearance of Mr. Dani in 2006 in a specific performance suit brought into question his role in representing Respondent No.1 in 2018.
- Absence of a written Vakalatnama in favor of the counsel representing Respondent No.1 was noted.
- Affidavits from close relatives of the parties confirmed the agreement and absence of Respondent No.1 in legal proceedings.
- No collusive arguments were found in the proceedings in favor of the plaintiff.
- Factors such as exploring settlement and lack of knowledge of appeal proceedings were considered before passing the judgment dated 14.02.2018.
- Ms. Anjani Aiyagari’s argument regarding the injunction granted in the partition suit affecting the appeal outcome
- Mr. Basant’s correction that the argument based on the injunction would not have changed the appeal decision
Also Read: Land-Grabbing Conspiracy Case: Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment
Decision
- Aspect of RPC was argued and considered
- Judgment dated 14.02.2018 mentions the consideration of RPC aspect
- Clear reference to the argument and consideration of RPC in Para 33
Case Title: SHRE CHAITANYA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. SUDHIR POONUMCHAND PARAKH
Case Number: C.A. No.-005620-005620 / 2019
