“7. To obtain an order-in-council for a defined benefit, the applicant must prove that he is willing and willing to perform his part of the contract, and availability and availability must be demonstrated and must be established by the applicant.” 10. In addition to a clear interpretation of section 19 of the Act, we also consider this section to be exhaustive as to who are the parties against whom a contract of a certain benefit can be obtained. Section 16 (c) of the Act, as amended by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act of 2018, no longer requires the applicant to assume availability and availability, as a mantra in the application previously requires. However, I think it is imperative that the applicant prove that he has already fulfilled the essential conditions of the contract or that he has always been willing and willing to apply the contractual terms he must apply. This can only be done if the claimant`s right exposes and discloses in the obligation to appeal facts that reveal availability, availability and benefit. Consistent case law suggests that the evidence is not in a position to violate the briefs, so sufficient briefs would still be required to allow the Court to draw the elements of the amended Section 16, that is, proof of availability and availability or performance. All of the above principles would be applied with the same force to a party seeking to achieve a certain performance in an arbitration proceeding. “22. A lengthy process of the decisions of the Indian High Courts has decided that the Court of Justice, which adopts a decree for a specified benefit, will retain control of the decree, even after the adoption of the decree. In Mahommadalli Sahib v. Abdul Khadir Saheb,[34] it was decided that the Court of Justice, which issues a decree for a specified benefit, extended the deadline set out in the decree on the grounds that the court retains control of the decree, that the contract between the parties does not end by the adoption of a decree for a specified benefit and that the contract exists despite the adoption of the decree.

In Pearisundari Dassee v. Hari Charan Mozumdar Chowdhry,[35] the Calcutta Supreme Court stated that the court retains control of the procedure, even after the adoption of a decree on a given benefit, that the decree promulgated in an appeal for a given benefit is not a final decree and that the appeal must also be considered pending under the decree…… Fry in his book[36] on specific performance declared the law in England as follows. : Due to the uniqueness of the land, it is sometimes a preferred remedy for a buyer or tenant when a seller or landlord is not ready. There is a general principle that a land ownership contract is generally explicitly applied.