Praveen Kumar Mishra Vs Seetaram Rajak

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:25378-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

REVP No.412 of 2025

¶6

1 - Praveen Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri Sharawan Kumar Mishra Aged About 60 Years R/o Godpara, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently R/o House No.D 39, Rama Life City, Sakri, In Front Of Jain International School, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintiff)

¶7

Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Seetaram Rajak S/o Late Shri Raghuvar Prasad Rajak Aged About 44 Years

¶10

2 - Laxmi Rajak S/o Late Raghuvar Prasad Rajak Aged About 41 Years

¶11

Both R/o Village Mangla, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendants)

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nishtha Singh, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate

¶14

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Digitally signed by R NIRALA

¶18

22/06/2026

¶19

Per Rajani Dubey J.

¶20

2

¶21

Heard on IA No.1, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

¶22

On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 220 days in filing the review petition is hereby condoned.

¶23

¶24

Also heard review petition on merits.

¶25

The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment/order passed by this Court dated 17.01.2025 in FA No.69/2022, whereby though the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court, however the respondents were directed to return the earnest money of Rs.8 Lakhs to the petitioner along with interest @ 6 % per annum.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled to be paid total Rs.11 Lakhs as earnest money, however, inadvertently in para 24 of the judgment, this Court wrongly held that the petitioner would be paid Rs.8 Lakhs as earnest money, whereas the learned Trial Court while deciding Issue Nos.1 & 2 specifically held that the respondents duly executed agreement to sale the suit lands by receiving Rs.8 Lakhs on 11.05.2010 and Rs.3 Lakhs on 27.01.2011 as earnest money. Therefore, the review petition be allowed and para 24 of the order dated 17.01.2025 be modified to some extent.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents strongly objected that the petitioner/plaintiff has not pleaded about the earnest money in his plaint and even proper court fee was not paid by the petitioner, as

¶28

3

¶29

such this review petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

In reply to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if this Court finds that proper court fees was not paid by the petitioner, then he is ready to deposit the court fees as per the order of this Court.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

This Court passed judgment on 17.01.2025 in FA No.69/2022 and the operative paras 22, 23 & 24 as under:-

¶33

“22. Thus, in the light of aforesaid judgment, this Court held the plaintiff to be entitled to receive the earnest money from the defendants.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid discussion of evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based on evidence filed by both the parties. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶35

Since this Court held the plaintiff to be entitle to received earnest money, We direct the defendants to return the earnest money of Rs.8,00,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate 6% per annum.”

¶36

It is also clear that the petitioner filed SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court passed order on 29.08.2025 and gave liberty to the petitioner to file review petition before this Court to the limited extent with regard to earnest money. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court is as under:-

¶37

4

¶38

“1. Delay condoned.

¶39

Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the petition on merits. However, on the issue relating to refund of the earnest money/advance amount, it has been held by the Courts below that plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs 11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs) yet overdue for refund of only for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs).

¶40

In that view of the matter, the petitioner would be at liberty to move the high Court seeking for review of the impugned order to this limited extent only and it is specifically made clear that the High Court would not be obliged to hear on any other issue except to the extent of considering the refund of the earnest money only, subject to objection if any that may be received by defendant.

¶41

With this observation, the special leave petition stands dismissed.

¶42

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶43

It is clear from this order that the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP on merits, however gave liberty of seeking review to the extent of earnest money and as per petitioner the learned Trial Court in its judgment found that the earnest money is of total Rs.11 Lakhs (Rs.8 Lakhs + Rs.3 Lakhs), but this Court only granted refund of Rs.8 Lakhs. It is also clear from this review petition that it is limited only for grant of earnest money of Rs.11 Lakhs and as per report of Registrar (Judicial), the petitioner has to pay court fee of Rs.2,48,810/-. As per appeal memo i.e. FA No.29/2022, this review petition is limited for earnest money of Rs.11 Lakhs and not for whole suit claim of Rs.63 Lakhs.

¶44

The petitioner has to pay court fees according to Court Fees Act

¶45

5

¶46

only on earnest money of Rs.11 Lakhs so we are of this considered opinion that the petitioner has to pay court fees on this review petition only for earnest money of Rs.11 Lakhs.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court and this Court found that the respondents received Rs.8 Lakhs on 11.05.2010 and Rs.3 Lakhs on 27.01.2011 as earnest money, but in operative part of the judgment, this Court only ordered for refund of Rs.8 Lakhs as earnest money with interest @ 6% per annum so this review petition may be allowed and the respondents be directed to refund earnest money amounting to Rs.11 Lakhs with interest @ 18% annum from the date of receiving of the earnest money by the respondents or from the date of execution of the agreement or in alternate quantify the amount with compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs in favour of the petitioner.

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondents strongly objected the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has not pleaded for earnest money in his plaint thus such relief cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶49

It is clear from the record that the learned Trial Court decided issue Nos.1 & 2 in favour of the petitioner and found that the respondents received Rs.8 Lakhs on 11.05.2010 and Rs.3 Lakhs on 27.01.2011 as earnest money from the petitioner.

¶50

In paras 11 & 20 of the judgment dated 17.01.2025, this Court held as under:-

¶51

6

¶52

“11. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded its finding that the plaintiff and defendants had executed an agreement dated 11.05.2010 and 27.01.2011 & defendants received Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- as earnest money respectively, but in issue No.3, the learned trial Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove this fact that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

¶53

Now coming to the question of return of earnest money, it is clear from the finding of the learned trial Court that the defendants and other co-owners have received earnest money of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff knowing this fact that they and other co-owners are not the joint owner of the suit property.”

¶54

It is clear from the judgment of this Court as well as learned Trial Court that the respondents received total Rs.11 Lakhs (Rs.8 Lakhs + Rs.3 Lakhs) as earnest money from the petitioner but in para 20 of the judgment of this Court, inadvertently amount of Rs.3 Lakhs was not mentioned. In para 21, this Court found that the petitioner is entitled to receive the earnest money of Rs.8 Lakhs from respondents and this Court also confirmed the finding of the learned Trial Court regarding the earnest money of Rs.11 Lakhs so this review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 17.01.2025 is slightly modified to the extent that para 24 be read as under:-

¶55

“24. Since this Court held the plaintiff to be entitled to receive earnest money, We direct the defendants to return the earnest money of Rs.11,00,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate 6% per annum.”

¶56

Let a decree be drawn accordingly, subject to deposit of court fees by the petitioner on the earnest money of Rs.11 Lakhs as per law within a period of 10 days from today.

¶57

7

¶58

In the result, the review petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶59

Sd/- Sd/Rajani Dubey Bibhu Datta Guru Judge Judge

¶60

Nirala

Praveen Kumar Mishra v. Seetaram Rajak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Mishra v. Seetaram Rajak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Videsh Kumar Vs Smt. Saroj

Kripa Ram Sahu Vs Mintaram Sahu (Since Deceased) through LRs

U. Chandrashekhar Vs Smt. Sarita