“The behavior of a plaintiff is very important in a legal action on certain benefits. Any person who, on 12.11.1996, takes legal action and makes use of availability and availability, but does not bring an action until 13.10.1999, even if only with a prayer for a mandatory injunction, which bears a fixed court fee, which is associated only with the said facility, is not entitled to discretionary relief of certain benefits. “- Justice NV Ramana and Justice V. Ramasubramanian. CASE 23: The Court may order that the specific performance of the contract be sanctioned by the legal authorities “12. The basic principle of section 16 (c) in conjunction with Explanatory Note (ii) is that any person wishing to benefit from the specific performance of the contract must demonstrate that his conduct has been impeccable throughout the period during which he is entitled to the specific relief. The provision provides for a personal blockage. The Court grants the appeal on the basis of the conduct of the person seeking a right. If it is apparent from the pleadings that the applicant`s conduct gives him the right to obtain relief by examining the appeal, he should not be denied redress.  Section 10 (before it was amended).
Cases where the specific performance of a contract is applicable.- Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the specific performance of a contract may be imposed at the discretion of the Tribunal…. In the present case, Jayakantham and others against Abaykumar, the Court of Justice adopted the Decree on the Specific Benefit to the Defendant Buyer, which was upheld by the Senior District Judge on appeal and by the Madras Supreme Court in the second appeal. However, the Supreme Court issued a contrary opinion and annulled the decree of the specific benefit. The court found an appeal by defendants in a specific appeal on the merits of the interim order issued by the Court of Justice (and upheld by the High Court) that prevented them from executing a deed of sale or other indicted documents relating to the property. The defendants argued that there was no contract of sale concluded and that the contract was concluded only at the negotiation stage. When the interviews were cancelled, the amount of the advance was also reimbursed to the applicant, the defendants filed . . .