TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same could not be enforced in favour of the appellant who was found to have failed to prove that she performed or had always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the agreement executed between the parties. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant entered into an agreement to sell (Exhibit A-2) with the respondent-defendant initially on 5.1.1980 and subsequently on 16.3.1980 with respect to land measuring 27 cents for a price of ₹ 24,300/-. A sum of ₹ 8,000/- is stated to have been paid to the respondent-defendant on the day of the execution of the agreement which was reduced to writing and signed by the parties. As the respondentdefendant failed to execute the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Whether in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff has established that she has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. It has been conceded before us that both the courts of fact had concluded that the time was not the essence of the contract and that the appellant-plaintiff did not abandon the contract voluntarily and was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff has urged that the judgment of the High Court is contrary to the mandate of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant has tried to justify it on various grounds and persuaded us to hold that the appellant-plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e certified by the courts to be substantial question of law. We have noticed with distress that despite amendment, the provisions of Section 100 of the Code have been liberally construed and generously applied by some judges of the High Courts with the result that objective intended to be achieved by the amendment of Section 100 appears to have been frustrated. Even before the amendment of Section 100 of the Code, the concurrent finding of facts could not be disturbed in the second appeal. This Court in Paras Nath Thakur v. Smt.Mohani Dasi (Deceased) Ors. [AIR 1959 SC 1204] held: It is a well settled by a long series of decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and of this Court, that a High Cour,t on second appeal, can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion or alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar Ors. [JT 1999 (3) SC 163] this Court again considered this aspect of the matter and held: If the question of law termed as substantial question stands already decided by a large bench of the High Court concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w is also possible would not clothe the High Court to assume the jurisdiction by terming the question as substantial question of law. In this case Issue NO.1, as framed by the Trial Court, was, admittedly, an issue of fact which was concurrently held in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and did not justify the High Court to disturb the same by substituting its own finding for the findings of the courts below, arrived at on appreciation of evidence. When, concededly, the time was not the essence of the contract, the appellant-plaintiff was required to approach the court of law within a reasonable time. A Constitution Bench of this Hon ble Court in Chand Rani (Smt.) (Dead) By Lrs. v. Kamal Rani (Smt.)(Dead) By Lrs. [1993 (1) SCC 519 held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or duty requires should be done in a particular case. In other words it means as soon as circumstances permit. In Law Lexicon it is defined to mean A reasonable time, looking at all the circumstances of the case; a reasonable time under ordinary circumstances; as soon as circumstance will permit; so much time as is necessary under the circumstances, conveniently to do what the contract requires should be done; some more protracted space thant directly ; such length of time as may fairly, and properly, and reasonably be allowed or required, having regard to the nature of the act or duty and to the attending circumstances; all these convey more or less the same idea. In the instant case the parties had agreed to complete the sale by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
