M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. versus KATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. versus KATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

The Court found errors apparent on the face of the record in its earlier judgment regarding (a) interpretation of Clauses 3 and 21 and the related factual finding on production of certificates, which led to incorrect conclusions on limitation and on whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform; limitation for the suit ran from the date of refusal of performance (reply dated 14.04.2000) and the suit was within limitation; the petitioner had proved readiness and willingness to perform under s.16; lis pendens under s.52 TPA applied from institution of the review petition; in view of these errors the three-Judge Bench judgment dated 25 August 2022 was recalled and the High Court...

Parties
Petitioner: M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent: Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Review Petition / Final Judgment on Review
Outcome
Review petitions allowed; judgment of this Court dated 25 August 2022 recalled; judgment of the High Court dated 23 April 2021 restored.
Legal Topics
Review of Supreme Court Judgment, Specific Performance, Lis Pendens, Limitation, Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, Section 10 Specific Relief Act, Section 16 Specific Relief Act
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Limitation Law Review of Supreme Court Judgment Specific Performance Lis Pendens Limitation +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Petitioner

Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Petition / Final Judgment on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court judgment dated 25 August 2022 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review
  2. 2 Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract entitling him to specific performance

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found errors apparent on the face of the record in its earlier judgment regarding (a) interpretation of Clauses 3 and 21 and the related factual finding on production of certificates, which led to incorrect conclusions on limitation and on whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform; limitation for the suit ran from the date of refusal of performance (reply dated 14.04.2000) and the suit was within limitation; the petitioner had proved readiness and willingness to perform under s.16; lis pendens under s.52 TPA applied from institution of the review petition; in view of these errors the three-Judge Bench judgment dated 25 August 2022 was recalled and the High Court...

Court Disposition

Review petitions allowed; judgment of this Court dated 25 August 2022 recalled; judgment of the High Court dated 23 April 2021 restored.

Orders

  • Judgment of this Court dated 25 August 2022 recalled
  • Judgment and order of the High Court dated 23 April 2021 restored