https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187479 A plaintiff who challenges a contract as void or voidable on the ground of undue influence or coercion cannot, in the same suit, seek specific performance of that very contract unless the statute expressly permits such an alternative claim. Order 7 Rule 7 CPC allows alternative reliefs only where each relief is legally maintainable, and the Specific Relief Act provisions on rescission do not authorise the converse remedy of specific performance when the contract is attacked as invalid. The absence of an averment of continuous readiness and willingness also defeats specific performance. An erroneous trial court order granting such relief raises a jurisdictional error and may be corrected in revision under Section 115 CPC. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:10:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187479 A plaintiff who challenges a contract as void or voidable on the ground of undue influence or coercion cannot, in the same suit, seek specific performance of that very contract unless the statute expressly permits such an alternative claim. Order 7 Rule 7 CPC allows alternative reliefs only where each relief is legally maintainable, and the Specific Relief Act provisions on rescission do not authorise the converse remedy of specific performance when the contract is attacked as invalid. The absence of an averment of continuous readiness and willingness also defeats specific performance. An erroneous trial court order granting such relief raises a jurisdictional error and may be corrected in revision under Section 115 CPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187479