Section 20. Replacement of the contract.- (1) Without prejudice to the universality of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 (9 of 1872) and, unless the parties agree otherwise, if the contract is terminated because of the non-compliance of a party`s commitments, the party who suffers from that violation has the option of replacing the benefit with a third party or an agency. , and, the costs and other costs actually incurred, spent or incurred by the party that commits such a violation. “7. A simple interpretation of this provision, that is, the second part of Rule 10 (2) CPC, would clearly show, in our view, that the parties required in an action for the practical performance of a sales contract are the contracting parties or, if they are dead, their legal representatives as well as a person who acquired the contractual property of the seller. In both equity and legal law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the debts of the parties. A buyer is a necessary party, as he would be concerned if he had acquired with or without termination of the contract, but a person who complains about a seller`s claim is not a necessary party. It is clear from the above that two tests must be carried out to determine who is a necessary part. The exams are … (1) there must be a right to some relief from that party with respect to procedural controversies; (2) In the absence of such a party, no effective decree can be made. This article aims to share and take into account the fundamentals and important aspects, while seeking specific execution of ownership and related contracts. It follows from the mere interpretation of the above provision that rule (2) of Rule 10 confers greater discretion on the Court to deal with any case or failure of a party and to proceed with a person who is either a necessary party or a proper party, whose presence before the Court is indispensable for an effective decision of appeal issues.
With regard to personal property, the general rule is to refuse specific relief, since it is assumed that non-compliance can be compensated in an unchanged form in the form of money under section 10 of the Act. Although Section 10 of the Act is now amended, this does not mean that some benefit is generally granted for mobile materials. The law also provides that the breach of the contract against mobile substances can be compensated and that the benefit may therefore be refused. An exception is made, among other things, where the property is not an ordinary commercial object, of particular value or interest to the applicant, or consists of property that is not readily available on the market. The specific benefit is a fair right of appeal granted by the Court of Justice for the performance of contractual obligations between the parties. This is a reimbursement of benefits, as opposed to an action for damages for breach, where financial compensation is granted as an exemption in the event of non-compliance with the contractual conditions. “Since the respondent is not a party to the sale agreement, it cannot be said that without his presence, the dispute over the actual benefit cannot be established.