Specific relief act 34 and 39
raju
(Querist) 13 August 2024
This query is : Resolved
An employee was working in private job for almost more than 6 years and the employer removed terminated without any notice or inquiry and also did not pay his salary and gratuity. The employee advocate filed civil suit under the specific relief act section 34 39 for reinstate with full back wages and mandatory injunction. My query is whether the advocate had filled correct suit as some one has confused me that case should have been filled under section 37 CPC summary of suit. Please advise.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 15 August 2024
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables a person to have his right or legal character declared by a Court of law and thus get rid of the cloud from his legal character or right.
Section 39 of The Specific Relief Act deals with the relief of Mandatory Injunction, it states as under : “When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation of the erring party,
and the party may be compelled to perform certain acts. Such Injunction can be granted
under following circumstances:
1. There must be an obligation on part of the defendant to perform certain acts the
breach of which, must be alleged by the plaintiff.
2. Such relief must be enforceable by the court.
3.
Order 37 CPC guarantees that the defendant does not drag out the proceedings. The defendant in these instances can seek permission to defend if he possesses the necessary defence to demonstrate that his position is substantive in character; otherwise, the plaintiff has a stronger hand in the case.
If you were not sure of what remedy you require then you could have discussed the subject with a different advocate before filling the suit.
