2010 (8) TMI 1116 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms contract validity, requires more evidence, dismisses time-bar claim.

Vinay Rai Versus Anil Rai

The Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the document in question represented a concluded contract, not merely a 'Wish List.' The Court ... - Issues Involved:1. Concluded Contract or Wish List2. Suit Barred by Prescription3. Court Fees Valuation4. Leave of Court for Fresh Action5. Maintainability of Suit u/s 41(h) of Specific Relief ActSummary:1. Concluded Contract or Wish List: The Appellant argued that no concluded contract existed between the parties, claiming the document was merely a 'Wish List'. The Court referred to the legal enunciation in Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119, which emphasized upholding family arrangements. The Court found no reason to disturb the Single Judge's view that the document represented a concluded contract.2. Suit Barred by Prescription: The Appellant contended that the Suit was barred by limitation, asserting that the cause of action arose in 2002, making the 2006 Suit time-barred. The Court noted that events related to the Rai Family Agreement continued past 2002, requiring evidence to be recorded. The Single Judge's decision to await trial for a final decision on this point was upheld.3. Court Fees Valuation: The Single Judge ruled against the Respondent/plaintiff regarding court fees, leading to an appeal. The Appeal was disposed of on 10.8.2010, with the plaintiff agreeing to affix court fees as determined by the Single Judge.4. Leave of Court for Fresh Action: The Appellant argued that the Suit should be rejected as no leave was obtained for filing a fresh action after the dismissal of CS(OS) No. 118/2005. The Court noted that the previous suit was filed by the plaintiff's relatives, and the present plaintiff was a Defendant therein, making the provisions inapplicable. This objection was not pressed before the Court.5. Maintainability of Suit u/s 41(h) of Specific Relief Act: The Appellant raised an additional ground u/s 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, arguing the Suit was not maintainable as it sought a mandatory and permanent injunction. The Court questioned the propriety of raising this ground at the appellate stage. The Court found that the argument did not support the Appellant's stand and emphasized that all legal points must be raised at the trial stage. The Court rejected the Appellant's argument, noting that contradictory pleas could not defeat the Suit at the threshold.Conclusion: The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned Order and dismissed the Appeal and pending application.