'Fatal Flaw' In Specific Performance Suits: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea For Failing To Plead 'Readiness And Willingness'

"The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a judgment dated 25 August 2026, has underscored the absolute necessity of pleading and proving 'readiness and willingness' in suits for specific performance of contract.

Justice Ashish Shroti, while adjudicating a second appeal, reiterated that even in cases where the defendant remains ex-parte, the court is mandated to scrutinize the plaint to ensure the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act are satisfied, failing which the relief cannot be granted.

Legal Necessity of Section 16(c)

The dispute arose from a 1990 agreement where the plaintiff sought specific performance of a land sale deed after the defendant failed to repay a loan of ₹30,000. Both lower courts had initially dismissed the suit primarily on the ground of non-compliance with the notice requirements under Section 80 of the CPC. While the High Court clarified that notice to the State was not required in this context, it ultimately upheld the dismissal of the suit on the basis of the plaintiff’s failure to establish the essential criteria under the Specific Relief Act.

Court Explains Scope Of Section 16(c)

The Court emphasized that the relief of specific performance is an equitable one, governed by the principles of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. It is not an automatic right flowing from a valid agreement. The Bench highlighted that the plaintiff must prove their financial capacity and consistent conduct demonstrating a desire to perform the contract from the date of the agreement through to the passing of the decree.

"The court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available."

Absence Of Pleading Is Fatal

Regarding the reliance placed on the plaintiff’s own testimony and the plaint averments, the Court observed a critical contradiction. The plaintiff had frequently demanded the return of the money with interest rather than consistently demanding the execution of the sale deed. Such conduct, the Court reasoned, clearly demonstrated an underlying unwillingness to perform the specific terms of the contract, thereby disentitling the plaintiff to equitable relief.

Rigorous Scrutiny Even In Ex-Parte Suits

The Court further clarified that the absence of a written statement due to the defendant being ex-parte does not absolve the plaintiff from proving their case. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, the Bench noted that the court must independently scrutinize the facts to ensure that all statutory requirements, specifically those in Section 16, are met. A mechanical approach is insufficient in a suit for specific performance.

"The requirement of such pleading being available in the plaint was neither waived nor even whittled down... The plaint which seeks the relief of specific performance of the agreement/contract must contain all requirements of Section 16(c)."

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that readiness could be inferred from the circumstances, noting that the pleading and evidence were fundamentally lacking. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the production of a sale deed executed during the pendency of the appeal as legally inconsequential, given that the underlying judgment supporting it had been recalled. Consequently, the suit for specific performance was dismissed, reaffirming that the absence of clear pleading and proof of readiness and willingness is fatal to a claim for specific performance.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2026