K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima & Ors.
2025 INSC 617
Supreme Court: Alternative Relief U/s. 22 Specific Relief Act, Including Refund Of Earnest Money, Cannot Be Granted Suo Moto By Courts
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, which held that the Appellant was not entitled to the relief of specific performance, having failed to prove his willingness to perform his part of the contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.;
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court denied the relief of refund of advance money to the Appellant having regard of the fact that the Appellant had not sought for an alternative prayer for refund of the advance sale consideration in the suit as mandated by Section 22(2) of the Act.
The Court referred to its decision in Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, wherein it was held that “The court, however, has been vested with wide judicial discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint even at a later stage of the proceedings and seek the alternative relief of refund of the earnest money. The litmus test appears to be that unless a plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of filing of the suit or by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted to him. The prayer clause is a sine qua non for grant of decree of refund of earnest money.”
The Bench emphasised that while Section 22 of the Act allowed a party to seek the refund as an alternative relief if specific performance was refused, this relief cannot be granted unless it has been specifically claimed.
“In our considered opinion, the law contained under Section 22(2) of the 1963 Act is adequately broad and flexible to allow the appellant to seek an amendment of the plaint for the said relief, even at the appellate stage. However, no such application for an amendment of the plaint was moved either before the trial court or during the course of the first appeal before the High Court. That is to say, the appellant never prayed for the refund of the advance money. Here, it would be redundant to state that the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Court ordered that “the forfeiture of advance money…was justified. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the relief of refund of advance money to the appellant…We are unable to find any kind of perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. As a result, the present appeal stands dismissed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Posts
0 Comments