2023 SCMR 815
Under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court for decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract is discretionary in nature in which the Court is not bound to grant such relief, but in tandem the discretion is not to be exercised arbitrarily but should be based on sound legal principles after analyzing and gauging the circumstances, inter alia, whether the contract is such which gives an unfair advantage to the plaintiff over the defendant or the performance of the contract encompasses some hardship on the defendant which he could not foresee or whether its non-performance would embroil some hardship to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance. The person seeking specific performance has to establish that he is enthusiastic and vehement to act upon his obligations as per the contract but the opponent is refusing or delaying its execution. So far as the limitation period for the institution of a lawsuit against non-performance is concerned, the starting point of limitation under Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1908 for institution of legal proceedings enunciates two limbs and scenarios. In the first segment, the right to sue accrues within three years if the date is specifically fixed for performance in the agreement itself whereas in its next fragment, the suit for specific performance may be instituted within a period of three years from the date when plaintiff has noticed that performance has been refused by the vendor but in both scenarios, the right to sue has not been left open ended.
