http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2711 of 2001

PETITIONER: The General Manager,Pench Area, Parasia, M.P. & Anr.

RESPONDENT: Barkan @ Kanhaiya

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

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 \023Guntoo\024 was appointed at the request of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.