[5] Section 10. Specific service with regard to contracts. – The specific performance of a contract shall be performed by the Tribunal, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 11, 2, 14 and 16. “It may happen and often that another remedy is necessary after judgment on the concrete performance of a contract, when one or the other of the parties is late in the performance of something, which will be indicated by him or by himself after the judgment; for example, if a seller refuses or is unable to make a proper transfer of ownership, or if a buyer pays the purchase money.. . . . “14. The amendment of the Specific Relief Act 1963 by Act 18 of 2018 replaces the expression “not aver and proves” with the expression “which does not prove” and the expression “must prove aver” with the expression “must prove”, but the position on all material aspects remains the same that the concrete performance of a contract cannot be imposed for the benefit of the person, which does not prove that it has already fulfilled the essential conditions of the contract which it must fulfil or that it has always been willing and willing to fulfil, with the exception of those conditions the performance of which the other party has prevented or cancelled. “42. A simple reading of art. Thus, in assessing cases of actual performance of a contract, the Tribunal may, at its discretion, impose any reasonable condition, including the payment of an additional amount by one party to the other, while adopting or refusing an order on a given service in the interests of justice and equity. (a) the separate possession or division and holding of property in addition to that benefit; or 17.
It should be noted that subsection (1) is an enabling provision. An applicant in an appeal relating to a particular service may require other facilities of use mentioned in sections (a) and (b) of these clauses. Clause (a) provides for exemptions from ownership and division as well as separate ownership of the property in addition to a given performance. The mandate of Article 22(2) is that the Tribunal shall not grant an appeal under points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 unless explicitly invoked. It follows that no court may grant exemption for the ownership of immovable property or other immovable property, which is the subject of the contract of sale for which a particular supply is claimed, unless ownership of the property is expressly determined`. The Supreme Court drew attention to the facts and found that a sales agreement had been reached between the complainants and the respondent`s father on 2 June 1999. The consideration agreed between the parties was Rupees One Lakh and Sixty Thousand, an amount of which rupees Sixty Thousand was paid at the time of performance of the contract of sale. The sale transaction is expected to be completed within three years, subject to payment of the balance of Rupees One Lakh. On May 7, 2002, the respondent issued a legal notice on the execution of the sales agreement. . . .