THE GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, M.P. versus BARKAN@ KANHAIYA

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 13-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
THE GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, M.P. 
&ANR. 
v. 
BARKAN@ KANHAIYA 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
Specific pe1formance: 
Suit for specific performance of contract of employment, alleging 
that inspite of a specific provision therein, Appellants did not employ 
son of Respondent-Maintainability of-Held: Not maintainable, since 
documentary evidence placed on record by Appellants showed that son 
D of Respondent had been employed-Specific Relief Act, 1963-s. l 4. 
Respondent filed suit for specific performance of a contract of 
employment alleging that inspite of a specific provision in the contract, 
Appellants did not employ his son. Trial Court decreed the suit. The 
E order was upheld by First Appellate Court and the High Court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: By an earlier order, this Court had permitted the appellants 
F to flle documents to show that the son ofrespondent 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.I 
named "Gun too" was appointed at the request of respondent no.I. The 
G document place~ on record by the appellant pursuant to the order of 
this Court also clearly establishes this fact. 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. [Paras 5 and 6] [586-B-D) 
I-I 
584 
THE GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, 
585 
M.P. v. BARKAN@KANHAIYA [PASAYAT, J.) 
~ -t 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2711 of A 
2001. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.12.1999 of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 856 of 1996. 
Anip Sachthey and Mohit Paul for the Appellants. 
B.K. Satija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the c 
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 D 
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 E 
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 F 
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 G 
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 H 
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 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 
B appellants to file documents to show that the son of the respondent no. l 
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.I named "Guntoo" was appointed at the request ofrespondent no. I. 
C 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. I deserves 
to be dismissed and the orde

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.