The General Manager, Pench Area, Parasia, M.P. & Anr. v. Barkan@ Kanhaiya

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit P. Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2007-12-13
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The suit is dismissed and the orders of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court are set aside. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; suit dismissed; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The General Manager, Pench Area, Parasia, M.P. & Anr.

Respondents

Barkan@ Kanhaiya

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Anip Sachthey
• Mohit Paul

Counsels for Respondents

• B.K. Satija

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Supreme Court of India appeal concerning a contract of employment tied to land acquired for employee quarters. The respondent had sought specific performance of an agreement that four persons would be employed, alleging that only three were given jobs and that the fourth was denied. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, as well as the Madhya Pradesh High Court, held the suit not maintainable under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, since the contract’s alleged breach did not warrant enforcement. The appellants contended that a solemn promise to employ four persons existed, and that documentary evidence, including a document produced with leave of the Court, showed that the respondent’s son (named “Guntoo”) was appointed at the request of respondent no.1, thus undermining the plaintiff’s claim. The Court permitted the appellants to file such documents, though not originally part of the record. On considering this evidence, the Court concluded that the suit should be dismissed because the actual appointment of the respondent’s son satisfied the obligation, negating the need for specific performance. Consequently, the lower courts’ orders were set aside and the appeal was allowed, with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 14

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that under the contract connected with land sale and provision for employee quarters, four persons were to be employed. Allegations persist that only three were employed and the fourth was denied. They argue that the Court should accept documentary evidence, including a document allowed to be filed by this Court, showing the respondent’s son was appointed at the respondent’s request. Such evidence undermines the plaintiff’s claim and warrants dismissal of the suit for specific performance; Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not permit enforcement of a promise to employ four persons when evidence shows compliance.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent maintains that the contract included a solemn promise to employ four persons; even if one son was later appointed, the obligation to employ four persons remains, and the suit for specific performance is maintainable under the act, subject to its carve-outs; the High Court correctly held that a solemn promise cannot be bypassed by technicalities, and the evidence presented does not satisfy the fulfillment of the contract.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A B c # THE GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, M.P. &ANR. _v._ ## BARKAN@ KANHAIYA ## DECEMBER 13, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] ## _Specific pe1formance:_ _Suit for specific performance of contract of employment, alleging that inspite of a specific provision therein, Appellants did not employ son of Respondent-Maintainability of-Held: Not maintainable, since documentary evidence placed on record by Appellants showed that son_ D _of Respondent had been employed-Specific Relief Act, 1963-s. l 4._ Respondent filed suit for specific performance of a contract of employment alleging that inspite of a specific provision in the contract, Appellants did not employ his son. Trial Court decreed the suit. The E order was upheld by First Appellate Court and the High Court. Hence the present appeal. ## Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: By an earlier order, this Court had permitted the appellants F to flle documents to show that the son ofrespondent 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.I named "Gun too" was appointed at the request of respondent no.I. The G document place~ on record by the appellant pursuant to the order of this Court also clearly establishes this fact. 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. [Paras 5 and 6] [586-B-D) I-I 584 I-I ~ -t THE GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, 585 M.P. _v._ BARKAN@KANHAIYA [PASAYAT, J.) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2711 of A 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. Anip Sachthey and Mohit Paul for the Appellants. B B.K. Satija for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **DR. ARIJIT P** ASAY AT, **J.** I. Challenge in this appeal is to the c 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 D employment. According to the appellants, his lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of quarters for the employees. 2. 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 E employment and in spite of assurance the defendants did not give the job to the plaintiffs. 3. Stand of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable. In fact, four persons have been given employment. The Trial Court and F 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 G were of the same view. 4. 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 H 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A 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. 5. By order dated March 31, 2000, this Court had permitted the B appellants to file documents to show that the son of the respondent no. l 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.I named "Guntoo" was appointed at the request ofrespondent no. I. C The document placed on record by the appellant pursuant to the order of this Court also clearly establishes this fact. 6. In that view of the matter the suit filed by respondent no. I 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 D we direct. 7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.