Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2711 of 2001
PETITIONER:
The General Manager,Pench Area, Parasia, M.P. & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Barkan @ Kanhaiya
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. 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 of the
contract of 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 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 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 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 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 appellants to file documents to show that the son of the
respondent 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.1 named \023Guntoo\024 was appointed at the request of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
respondent no.1. 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.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 which we direct.
7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.