Syed Dastagir v T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty

Facts

The plaintiff sued for specific performance, but the plaint did not reproduce the exact statutory words 'ready and willing'. The defendant contended that this omission rendered the plaint non-compliant with section 16(c) and the prescribed CPC forms, and so fatal to the suit.

Issues

• Whether section 16(c) requires use of the specific words 'ready and willing' in the plaint
• Whether substantial compliance through facts revealing readiness and willingness suffices

Arguments

The defendant argued that the absence of the exact statutory phraseology meant non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of section 16(c) and Forms 47–48. The plaintiff argued that the substance of the pleadings disclosed his readiness and willingness, which was sufficient.

Held

The Supreme Court held that section 16(c) does not require any specific phraseology; the plaintiff need only aver that he has performed or has always been and is willing to perform his part of the contract. Compliance must be tested in spirit and substance, not in letter and form. If the words used reveal the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his obligation, there is no non-compliance, even though the precise statutory expression is not employed.

Ratio decidendi

The mandatory requirement of section 16(c) is satisfied by substantial compliance — pleadings that in substance reveal readiness and willingness suffice; verbatim reproduction of the statutory words is not necessary.

Significance

The leading liberalising authority on pleading readiness and willingness, relaxing the strict Forms 47–48 approach; its substance-over-form rule was carried forward in Biswanath Ghosh and effectively endorsed by the 2018 amendment which dropped the averment requirement.

Related