Discretion by the Court in the case of Specific Performance

 The law with respect to discretion by the Court in the case of specific 

performance is clear and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemanta 

Mondal and Others Vs. Ganesh Chandra Naskar reported in (2016) 1 SCC 

567 has held as under:

"14. Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 gives

discretion to the court, and provides that the court is not

bound to grant relief of specific performance merely

because it is lawful to do so. It further provides that the

discretion is not to be exercised arbitrarily but guided by

judicial principles. Sub-section (2) of Section 20

enumerates three conditions when discretion is not to be

exercised to grant decree of specific performance:-

"20(2)(a) where the terms of the contract or the conduct of

the parties at the time of entering into the contract or the

other circumstances under which the contract was entered

into are such that the contract, though not voidable, gives

the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant; or

(b) where the performance of the contract would involve

some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee,

whereas its non-performance would involve no such

hardship on the plaintiff; or

(c) where the defendant entered into the contract under

circumstances which though not rendering the contract

voidable, makes it inequitable to enforce specific

performance."

15. Explanation (1) to sub-section (2) provides that

mere inadequacy of consideration shall not be deemed to

be an unfair advantage within the meaning of clause (a)

or hardship within the meaning of clause (b). Explanation

(2) provides that the question whether the performance of

a contract when involved hardship on the defendant

within the meaning of clause (b) shall, except in cases

where the hardship has resulted from any act of the

plaintiff subsequent in the contract, be determined with

reference to the circumstances accepting at the time of

contract. Sub-section (3) provides that court may properly

exercise discretion to decree specific performance in any

case where plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered

losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific

performance.

16. In the present case, it appears that possession was

not given to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the

agreement, nor the area of land agreed to be sold was

clear, as such, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has done

substantial acts or suffered losses due to expenditure in

constructions etc., in consequence of a contract capable of

specific performance. The direction given by High Court

in the impugned order shows that the measurements of

land actually agreed to be sold, are not final."

Information from: verdictm