It has already been pointed out with reference to Order 20 Rule 10 C.P.C. that whenever a suit is decreed for the delivery of specific movable properties, an alternative relief in terms of money decree could also be passed.
This is by way of abundant caution and also to avoid multiplicity of suits. Suppose, a suit is decreed ordering the return of the movables and suppose the defendant failed to return the same despite the decree.
It is not as though the plaintiff shall have to come to court again to obtain a decree in terms of money in the absence of the specific performance of the decree. In order to obviate the necessity for the plaintiff to approach the court again, Rule 10 specifically provides for granting an alternative relief in terms of money also.
When a decree is passed granting mandatory injunction, it is customary for the court to grant sometime to the judgment-debtor in order to make him execute the decree without formal execution.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Suppose the court directed Defendant B to demolish a compound wall for the scheduled premises, unless time is granted to the defendant to get the wall demolished with the help of labourers, from the date of the judgment the judgment- debtor becomes liable for not demolishing the walls forthwith.
If the judgment- debtor has been given sufficient time to demolish the wall and the judgment debtor does not demolish the wall, the plaintiff can get it demolished.
At the same time the defendant B would also be exposing himself not only to the violation of the injunction orders but also for contempt of court.
Insofar as decrees relate to dissolution of firms and the rendition of accounts, unless the court specifies as to which person shall render accounts and to whom, there may be many a hurdle for the passing of a final decree.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Consequently, the court should specifically declare at the preliminary decree stage as to who is responsible for the rendition of accounts in case of the dissolution of firms.