The
General Manager,Pench Area, Parasia, M.P. & Anr. Vs. Barkan @ Kanhaiya
[2007] Insc 1287 (13
December 2007)
Dr.
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench dismissing the appeal filed by
the appellants.
2.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent
filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of employment. According
to the appellants, his lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of
quarters for the employees.
2.
Sale-deed was executed in respect of the land and there was specific provision
in a preceding agreement that four persons were to be given employment.
Allegation was that only three had been provided employment and in spite of
assurance the defendants did not give the job to the plaintiffs.
3.
Stand of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable. In fact, four
persons have been given employment. The Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court accepted the position that three persons had been given jobs but held
that no job was provided to the appellant. The Trial Court noticed that even
though it was contended by the present appellants that one son of the plaintiff
had been given a job, no document in that regard had been filed. The First
Appellate Court and the High Court were of the same view.
4. The
High Court held that the stand of the appellant that in view of Section 14 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963, suit for specific performance is not
maintainable and is subject to certain exceptions. It was held that since there
was a solemn promise to employ four persons the appellants should not be
permitted to wriggle out the promise by taking the plea that Section 14 of the
Act bars a suit of the nature filed.
5. By
order dated March 31,
2000, this Court had
permitted the appellants to file documents to show that the son of the
respondent no.1 had been given appointment on his nomination. The same has been
filed. Though this document was not part of the records of the Courts below,
but other evidence was available to show that, in fact, son of respondent no.1
named Guntoo was appointed at the request of respondent no.1. The
document placed on record by the appellant pursuant to the order of this Court
also clearly establishes this fact.
6. In
that view of the matter the suit filed by respondent no.1 deserves to be
dismissed and the orders of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the High
Court in the Second Appeal deserve to be set aside which we direct.
7. The
appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
