Legal debate[edit]

There is an ongoing debate in the legal literature regarding the desirability of specific performance. Economists,
generally, take the view that specific performance should be reserved to exceptional settings, because it is
costly to administer and may deter promisors from engaging in efficient breach. Professor Steven Shavell, for
example, famously argued that specific performance should only be reserved to contracts to convey property
and that in all other cases, money damages would be superior. [9] In contrast, many lawyers from other
philosophical traditions take the view that specific performance should be preferred as it is closest to what was
promised in the contract.[10] There is also uncertainty arising from empirical research whether specific
performance provides greater value to promisees than money damages, given the difficulties of enforcement. [11]
What is Specific Performance
While specific performance is technically the performance of a contractual obligation, it
is most commonly referred to in relation to a court order to fulfill such an obligation.
Specific performance is a directive ordered by a court wherein a party to a contract must
perform a specific action as outlined in an existent contract. Specific performance can
refer to any kind of forced action, though it is usually enforced so as to complete a
transaction that had been previously agreed to.
For example, specific performance is usually ordered in cases wherein an award of
damages would not be enough to remedy the situation, such as cases involving the sale
of real property. A specific performance remedy is up to the discretion of the court.
Therefore, its availability relies heavily upon whether its award is appropriate when
considering the facts of the case.

Specific Performance Example Involving

an Oral Contract
An example of specific performance occurred in April 10, 1959, when Harold Weldon, a
driller, was in E.C. Joachim’s store on April 10, 1959 when the two entered into an oral
contract to transfer the interest in an oil and gas lease. Weldon alleged that the deal
hinged on Weldon’s securing a drilling contractor to drill a well on the property leased by
Joachim. For such services, Weldon alleged that Joachim agreed to convey to him the
royalty interest in the lease, but ultimately refused to make the transfer. Weldon then
sued Joachim for breach of contract, and Joachim countersued with a general denial.
Weldon finally found a contractor, Paul Hammer, who drilled the well and obtained an
assignment of the lease from Joachim. On the same day that Joachim assigned the
lease to Hammer and his partner, Weldon demanded that Joachim assign him the
interest he had been promised. Joachim, however, ultimately refused to uphold his end
of the bargain. Joachim testified that he never had any conversation with Weldon
insofar as drilling the well, nor did he have an oral or written contract with Weldon.
At trial, the contractor testified that he would not have taken the contract if it hadn’t been
for Weldon’s efforts. Upon the completion of the trial in the matter, the court found that
the parties had indeed entered into an oral contract, and that Weldon had upheld his
part of the contract. As such, the court felt that Weldon was entitled to specific
performance and ordered in his favor.
Joachim moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and so he appealed the trial
court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Joachim’s argument was that the
evidence relied on by Weldon to establish the contract at issue was not clear nor
forcible to bring it within the rule that applies to specific performance cases involving
oral contracts.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma, however, disagreed, holding specifically:
“The evidence in the instant action is cogent, clear and forcible as to leave no
reasonable doubt that plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement wherein
defendant would give plaintiff an interest in the lease if plaintiff would find somebody to
drill the lease. That plaintiff fully completed his part of the contract by finding a party
who drilled the lease. We therefore conclude that plaintiff and defendant entered into an
oral contract as contended by plaintiff and the trial court did not err in so finding.”
As such, the findings of the trial court were affirmed, in that the Supreme Court of
Oklahoma held that Weldon did perform on the oral contract as agreed and further, that
the trial court did not err in its decision to enforce specific performance.

Specific performance is a specialized remedy used by courts when no other remedy (such as
money) will adequately compensate the other party. If a legal remedy will put the injured party in
the position he or she would have enjoyed had the contract been fully performed, then the court
will use that option instead. The most common reason courts grant specific performance is that
the subject of the contract is unique, when it's not merely a matter of money or where the true
amount of damages is unclear. When a contract is for the sale of a unique property, for
instance, mere money damages may not remedy the purchaser's situation.
CASE LAWS
In 2016, the Supreme Court in Robin Ramjibhai Patel v. Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar
& Ors. [SLP (C) No. 31087 of 2014] reiterated that when a plaintiff wants to implead certain
persons as defendants in a suit for specific performance on the ground that they may be
adversely affected by the outcome of the suit, then interest of justice also requires allowing
such a prayer for impleadment so that the persons likely to be affected are aware of the
proceedings and may take appropriate defence as suited to their vendors.

The court also observed that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a
contract for sale are not only parties to the contract or their legal representatives, but also a
person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. (See Here)

In 2017, the Kerala High Court held that a plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of a
contract only if he sticks to the original terms of the contract. If there is any variation in the
terms of the contract even if it for the benefit of the defendant, the plaintiff will not be
entitled to seek specific performance. (See Here)

IN 2018, the Supreme Court in Sucha Singh Sodhi v. Baldev Raj Walia (Civil Appeal No.
3777 of 2018) held that specific performance and permanent/temporary injunction cannot
be claimed in one suit. This was held for the following reasons:-

1. Specific performance and temporary/permanent injunction cannot be claimed in

one suit as they are independent of each other.
2. The cause of action to claim temporary/permanent injunction against the
defendants from interfering in plaintiff’s possession over the suit premises accrues
when defendant No.1 threatens the plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit
premises or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to the suit premises.
It is governed by Order 39 Rule 1 (c) of the Code which deals with the grant of an
injunction. The limitation to file such suit is three years from the date of
obstruction caused by the defendant to the plaintiff.
On the other hand, the cause of action to file a suit for claiming specific performance arises
from the date fixed for the performance or when the plaintiff has noticed the non-
performance of the defendant. The limitation to file such suit is three years from such date.

1. When both the reliefs/claims are not:-

1. similar when the causes of action to sue are separate;

2. when the necessary constituents to the respective causes of action for both the
reliefs/claims are different;
3. when both the reliefs/claims are governed by separate sections of the Limitation
Act;

then it is impossible to claim both the reliefs together on one cause of action in the same
suit.

Another issue arose whether, in absence of permission granted by the trial court at the time
of withdrawing the previous suit in which permanent injunction was claimed, the plaintiff
can file a fresh suit where specific performance will be claimed. The court held that it would
consider the statement made by the plaintiff regarding withdrawal of suit and filing of a
fresh suit and this statement would serve as a part of the order for the same. (See

Plaintiff Can Implead Proposed Purchasers Of Property In Suit For Specific Performance: SC [Read Judgment]

https://www.livelaw.in/plaintiff-can-implead-proposed-purchasers-property-suit-specific-performance-sc/
CASE LAW

Plaintiff Can't Seek Specific Performance Of

Agreement Against Defendant On A Cause Of
Action For Permanent Injunction : SC
Section 23 which has been introduced in the amendment act this provision is made even if in a contract
there is a provision that any amount is to be paid and can be paid by one party to the other party in the
event of default made by the party it is not necessary that the courts would interpret that claus and say
that yes specific performance need not be granted and since an amount is already been categorically
stated in the contract by the parties saying that if the performance is not done then it can be substituted
by payment of money , it is not necessary that