Supreme Court Allows Oral Hearing Of Review Petition Against Judgment That 2018 Amendment To Specific Relief Act Is Prospective

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 2:1 majority, agreed to hear in open court a review petition filed against a 2022 judgment which held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, will apply only prospectively to transactions effected after the date when the amendment came into force (01.10.2018).

The original judgment was rendered by a three-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli in Katta Sujatha Reddy vs Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712.

On August 31, 2023, the review petition filed against the judgment was listed in chambers before a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli.

While CJI Chandrachud allowed the oral hearing of the review petition, Justice Hima Kohli (who was part of the original judgment) disagreed with the CJI. Justice Kohli held that there was no case for review and dismissed it. "With respectful regards, I regret my inability to concur with the order passed by the Hon. Chief Justice of India for listing the Review Petitions for open court hearing and notice returnable," Justice Kohli observed.

Justice Narasimha recused from the matter.

In view of the split, the matter was then placed before Justice Manoj Misra.

In the order passed on September 26 (uploaded on October 4), Justice Misra agreed with the view of CJI Chandrachud and held that an open hearing of the review petition was necessary. "Upon consideration of the materials on record, I am also of the view that delay in filing the review petition be condoned and the oral hearing of the review petition be allowed. Therefore, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned. Prayer for oral hearing of the review petition in open Court is allowed," Justice Misra observed.

Accordingly, notice was issued, returnable on October 14.

The 2018 amendment, among other things, made it mandatory for Courts to grant the relief of specific performance of contract, unless the case fell within the specified exceptions. Prior to 2018, specific performance was a discretionary remedy.

In the 2022 judgment, the Supreme Court took the view that the 2018 amendment was not merely procedural, as it created substantive rights, and hence, it cannot be given retrospective effect.

Case : M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt Ltd v. Katta Sujatha Reddy and Others | Review Petition (Civil) No 1565 of 2022

Click here to read the order