THE GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, M.P. v. BARKAN@ KANHAIYA

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 584

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

THE GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, M.P. v. BARKAN@ KANHAIYA.pdf

Judgment text

THE GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, M. P. &ANR. v. BARKAN@ KANHAIYA DECEMBER 13, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ. ] Specific pe1formance: Suitfor specificperformance ofcontract ofemployment, alleging that inspite ofa specific provision therein, Appellants did not employ son ofRespondent-Maintainability of-Held: Not maintainable, since documentary evidenceplacedon recordby Appellants showedthat son ofRespondent had been employed-Specific ReliefAct, 1963-s. l 4. Respondent filed suit for specific performance of a contract of employmentalleging that inspite ofa specific provision in the contract, Appellants did not employ his son. Trial Court decreed the suit. The orderwas upheld by FirstAppellate Court and the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Byan earlier order,this Courthad permitted the appellants 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 ofthe 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. The document place~ on record by the appellant pursuant to the order of this Court also clearly establishes this fact. In that view ofthe matter the suitfiled by respondentno. 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 THE GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, 585 M. P. v. BARKAN@KANHAIYA [PASAYAT, J. ) ~ -t CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2711 of A 2001. From the final Judgment and Order dated 21. 12. 1999 ofthe High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 856 of 1996. Anip Sachthey and Mohit Paul for the Appellants. B. K. Satija for the Respondent.

The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. 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 ofthe contract of D employment. According to the appellants, his lands were acquired for the purpose ofconstruction ofquarters 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 employment and in spite ofassurance the defendants did not give the job to the plaintiffs. 3. Stand ofthe 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 ofthe plaintiffhad been given ajob, no document in that regard had been filed. The First Appellate Court and the High Court were ofthe same view. 4. The High Court held that the stand ofthe 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 ofthe Act bars a suit ofthe nature filed. 5. By order dated March 31, 2000, this Court had permitted the appellants to file documents to show that the son ofthe respondent no.

l had been given appointment on his nomination. The same has been filed. Though this document was not part ofthe records ofthe Courts below, but other evidence was available to show that, in fact, son ofrespondent no. I named "Guntoo" was appointed at the request ofrespondent no. I. The document placed on record by the appellant pursuant to the order ofthis Court also clearly establishes this fact. 6. In that view ofthe matter the suit filed by respondent no. I deserves to be dismissed and the orders ofthe Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the High Court in the Second Appeal deserve to be set aside which we direct. 7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. B. B. B. Appeal allowed.