Section 10 of the Act, as amended by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, is intended to distort itself and is an attempt to reduce the discretion of the courts with respect to the performance of specific contract performance, in accordance with the statement of purpose and the grounds of the 2018 Amendment Act. „In my view, it was sufficient, based on the evidence already available in the minutes, for the court to have concluded that applicant 1 was willing and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was not necessary for him to draw up actual figures and satisfy the court of the specific amount that a bank would have advanced ……` ». The basic basis for the exercise of power by the courts requires due diligence on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. In assessing cases of special performance of a contract, the court may, at its sole discretion, impose any reasonable condition, including the payment of an additional amount by one party to the other party, while it issues or rejects a special benefit decree in the interests of justice and justice. Although the Supreme Court found that a sale agreement had been reached between the complainants and the respondent`s father on June 2, 1999, but did not establish the facts of the case. The thought agreed between the parties was rupees One lakh and sixty thousand, of which a quantity of rupees was paid to sell sixty thousand at the time of the implementation of the agreement. The sale is expected to close within three years with payment of Rupien One Lakh`s balance. On May 7, 2002, the respondent issued a legal reference to the implementation of the sale agreement. In response to the legal note, the complainant`s defence was, among other things, that the sale agreement had been executed only as collateral for a loan transaction, since the complainant`s father was a lender (which is a recognized fact).
The Supreme Court found that there was no error in the finding of the facts by the three courts and that, therefore, the judgment on the merits could not be set aside. The applicant, however, drew the attention of the Supreme Court to another argument that the property is the only property that retains the complainant`s property and has an extremely high value. The complainant also stated that they were willing to pay a sum of Ten Lakhs rupees, or more, to retain ownership of the complaint. In its decision, the Supreme Court considered this limited question/alternative argument.  Section 10. Specific contract performance. – The special performance of a contract is imposed by the court in the provisions of Section 11, Section 14 and Section 16, Section 2, Section 14 and Section 16, if the parties enter into a purchase and sale agreement (GSP) for residential real estate, the breach of the agreement by not concluding the transaction has consequences.