The previous Supreme Court decision upheld the ongoing right that it is not always necessary to grant relief from the special benefit simply because the law provides for such a discharge, but the decision must, after considering the cheap interest of both parties, be based on the facts and circumstances of the case. [7] 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. 43. Certainly, the above case does not fall within the first category of section 54 of the Statute on Prescription, because, as noted above, no date has been set for its implementation in the agreement. The case would therefore be of the second category viz. applicant has indicated that the benefit is denied. It is common for a contract to be terminated, resulting in legal action on the benefit. In such cases, the non-request to quash the termination would be fatal for the performance, because without a reasonable exemption to quash the termination, it would be presumed that the applicant accepted the same thing and then could not bring an action in the performance of a contract considered by his conduct to be over. « 22.

A lengthy process of the decisions of the Indian High Courts has decided that the Court of Justice, which adopts a decree for a specified benefit, will retain control of the decree, even after the adoption of the decree. In Mahommadalli Sahib v. Abdul Khadir Saheb,[34] it was decided that the Court of Justice, which issues a decree for a specified benefit, extended the deadline set out in the decree on the grounds that the court retains control of the decree, that the contract between the parties does not end by the adoption of a decree for a specified benefit and that the contract exists despite the adoption of the decree. In Pearisundari Dassee v. Hari Charan Mozumdar Chowdhry,[35] the Calcutta Supreme Court stated that the court retains control of the procedure, even after the adoption of a decree on a given benefit, that the decree promulgated in an appeal for a given benefit is not a final decree and that the appeal must also be considered pending under the decree…… Fry in his book[36] on specific performance declared the law in England as follows. If the court had simply awarded them damages for the difference, they could only have been entitled to the additional $5,000 and other late costs.