AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This second appeal is directed against a judgement and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly on 31st March, 2015 in Title Appeal No. 153 of 2012 affirming the judgement and decree dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 28 of 2006 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.
Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not.
On perusal of the judgements and decrees of the learned courts below, we find that the learned courts below dismissed the plaintiff?s suit for specific performance of contract due to bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Both the courts below found that there was a concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, but instead of enforcing the said concluded contract by way of specific performance of contract, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration for declaring the contract which was concluded by exchange of letters between the parties is valid and subsisting between them and for a mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to execute a written agreement in favour of the plaintiff.
Thus, both the courts below held that when there was a concluded contract between the parties, the plaintiff should have filed a suit for specific performance of contract. Plaintiff has not done so. On the contrary, the plaintiff has prayed for declaration and injunction. As such, we are of the view that the learned courts below were justified in dismissing the suit due to bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, we do not find involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We, thus, decline to admit this appeal. The appeal, thus, stands dismissed.