Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks about the conditions under which a court will grant the equitable remedy of 'specific performance' of a contract. This is governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Specific performance means compelling a party to perform their part of the contract as agreed.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The fundamental principle behind granting specific performance is that the ordinary legal remedy of damages (monetary compensation) is inadequate. Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, outlines cases in which specific performance of a contract is enforceable. The core idea is that the court will compel performance when the loss from non-performance cannot be adequately compensated with money.
Let's analyze the options:
- (A) This states that specific performance is ordered when compensation is \textit{not sufficient} relief. This is the primary basis for granting the remedy. For example, in contracts involving unique goods (like a rare painting) or immovable property, money is often considered inadequate.
- (B) This is the opposite of the correct principle. If compensation is sufficient relief, the court will award damages, not specific performance.
- (C) and (D) These describe situations where specific performance is generally \textit{refused}. Under Section 14 of the Act, contracts involving a continuous duty that the court cannot supervise, or contracts that are dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of the parties (personal nature), are not specifically enforceable.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The primary ground for ordering specific performance is the inadequacy of monetary compensation as a remedy for breach of contract. Therefore, option (A) is the correct answer.