SC Overturns Lower Courts, Allows Deceased's Representatives to File Additional Defense in Specific Performance Suit.

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the orders of the HC and trial court, and granted the legal representatives of the deceased permission to file an additional written statement in a suit for specific performance. The Court emphasized the right of parties to present defenses under the principles of natural justice and clarified that Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC should not be interpreted restrictively. The case was directed to proceed expeditiously, ensuring the legal representatives could fully participate in the proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
2. Right of legal representatives to file additional written statement.
3. Interpretation of Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC.
4. Application of precedent in specific performance suits.
5. Natural justice in allowing parties to present defenses.

Issue 1: Rejection of Application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC:
The case involved a revision petition filed in the High Court against the trial court's rejection of an application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The legal representatives of the deceased, Kapoor Chand, sought permission to file an additional written statement and take necessary pleas in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. The trial court and the High Court had both dismissed the application, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Right of Legal Representatives to File Additional Written Statement:
The Supreme Court held that legal representatives have the right to present any defense they choose, emphasizing that the courts erred in rejecting the application to file an additional written statement. The Court highlighted that every party in a case has the right to file a written statement as per the principles of natural justice enshrined in the Civil Procedure Code.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC:
The Court clarified that Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC should not be construed in a restrictive manner, as suggested by the respondent's counsel. It emphasized that legal representatives have the right to take defenses and present evidence in a suit, and the trial court's rejection of their application was against the principles of natural justice.

Issue 4: Application of Precedent in Specific Performance Suits:
The Court distinguished a previous decision cited by the respondent, emphasizing that the legal representatives of Kapoor Chand, who were also co-owners of the disputed property, had a fair semblance of title and interest. The Court held that the previous decision did not preclude the legal representatives from participating in the suit for specific performance.

Issue 5: Natural Justice in Allowing Parties to Present Defenses:
The Court stressed the importance of upholding natural justice by allowing the legal representatives to file an additional written statement and participate fully in the suit. It noted that denying them the opportunity to present a defense would violate the principles of fairness and due process.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court. The legal representatives were granted permission to file an additional written statement, and the suit was directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the law.

---