The preamble to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 says that:
An Act to define and amend the law relating to certain kinds of specific relief.
Though Specific Relief Act widens the spheres of the civil court its preamble shows that the Act is not exhaustive of all kinds of specific reliefs.
It is well to remember that the Act is not restricted to specific performance of contracts as the statute governs powers of the court in granting specific reliefs in a variety of fields. Even so, the Act does not cover all specific reliefs in a variety of fields. Even so, the Act does not cover all specific reliefs concievable.
Its preceding enactment (Specific Relief Act, 1877) was held by the courts in India as not exhaustive. Vide Ramdas Khatavu vs. Atlas Mills (AIR 1931 Born. 151).
In Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. vs. Haridas Mundhra & ors . [1972 (3) SCC 684] Apex Court observed that Specific Relief Act, 1963, is also not an exhaustive enactment and it does not consolidate the whole law on the subject.
As the preamble would indicate, it is an Act `to define and amend the law relating to certain kinds of specific relief. It does not purport to lay down the law relating to specific relief in all its ramifications. [Ashok Kumar Srivastav v National Insurance Company Ltd; (1998) 4 SCC 361]
Case Law Reference
- Murari Ganguly v. Kanailal Garai, AIR 2003 Cal 105
- Principal, Shri Jodha Singh Inter v. Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1999 (1) AWC 335
- United Planters Association v. P. Swaminathan, (1999) 1 MLJ 64
- Hungerford Investment Trust v. Haridas Mundhra, AIR 1972 SC 1826 : 1972 SCR (3) 690