“22. It is decided by a long series of decisions of the Indian High Courts that the Court of Justice, which adopts a decree for a given benefit, retains control of the decree even after the decree has been adopted. In mahommadalli Sahib v Abdul Khadir Saheb, it was held that the court that issues a decree for a given service has jurisdiction to extend the time limit set by the decree, since the court retains control of the decree according to which the contract between the parties does not expire by the adoption of a decree on a given service and that the contract exists despite the adoption of the decree. A Pearisundari Dassee v. Hari Charan Mozumdar Chowdhry, the Supreme Court of Calcutta, stated that the Court of Justice retains control of the procedure, even after the adoption of a decree for a given benefit, that the decree taken in an appeal for a given benefit is not a final decree and that the appeal must be considered as pending even after the decree…… Fry, in his book on certain benefits, stated the law in England as follows: the specific benefit is an appropriate remedy in contract law, in which a court makes an order requiring a party to perform a particular act, for example. B the conclusion of the performance of the contract. It is usually available in the sale of land rights, but it is not generally available if damage is an appropriate alternative. For personal services contracts, there is almost never a specific service, although the service may also be guaranteed by the threat of contempt of court proceedings. Section 16(c) of the Act, as amended by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, no longer requires the applicant to demonstrate availability and availability, as previously required by a mantra in the action.
However, I believe that it is always imperative that the applicant prove that he has already fulfilled or that he has always been willing and willing to fulfil the essential conditions of the contract which he had to fulfil. This is not possible, unless the applicant, who is a performance coach, also makes the necessary drop-offs in the appeal, which reveal and disclose facts that reveal the availability and availability and/or the service. According to settled case-law, evidence cannot run counter to pleadings, so that it would nevertheless be necessary to have sufficient pleadings to enable the Court to deduce the elements of the amended Article 16, that is to say. . . .