This oral judgment records the withdrawal of a specific performance appeal. The court allowed the withdrawal following a compromise and compromise affidavit filed by the parties, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in view of the compromise between the parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.3677 of 2012 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3677 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:22.08.2013
Raghbir Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Mukhtiar Kaur and others ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:- Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
C.M.No.9808-C-2012
The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.M.No.8731-C-2013
The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Documents are taken on record.
C.M.No.8732-C-2013 with RSA No.3677 of 2012
This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
The appellant had filed the instant suit making the following prayer:-
“Suit for possession through specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 10.1.2002 regarding the property as fully detailed at letter X below with all other rights i.e. Right to passage, pahi, share in
Kadian Savita 2013.08.26 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.3677 of 2012 (O&M)
2
bore, etc. executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.14,87,813/- on payment of Rs.14,12,813/- as balance sale price and; by deducting Rs.75,000/- paid as earnest money paid at the time of execution of Agreement to sell dated 10.1.2002 by directing the defendant to execute and register sale deed regarding the property mentioned at letter X below in favour of the plaintiff.
AND
In the alternative suit for recovery of Rs.14,87,813/i.e. Rs.75,000/- paid as earnest money and Rs.14,12,813/- as damages suffered by the plaintiff alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of agreement till the final realization of the amount.
Suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, his agents and servants from alienating the property mentioned at letter by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, gift or in any other manner to any other person, except the plaintiff.”
The said suit was decreed in the following terms:-
This suit is coming for final decision on 6th November, 2011 before me Baljinder Siddhu, PCS, Addl.Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Fatehgarh Sahib, in the presence of Sh. R.S.Kang, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. H.S.Rai, Adv. For defendants. It is hereby ordered that the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed for the alternative relief of recovery of Rs.75,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the actual realization.”
Kadian Savita 2013.08.26 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.3677 of 2012 (O&M)
3
Plaintiff-appellant as well as defendant-respondents both filed appeals against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.2012, both these appeals were dismissed.
Still not satisfied, plaintiff-appellant has filed the instant appeal raising grievance regarding non-grant of the relief of the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.01.2002.
An application has been filed i.e. C.M.No.8732-C-2013, wherein, it has been mentioned that the parties to the litigation namely Raghbir Singh and Lakhbir Singh have entered into compromise and the copy of the compromise dated 17.12.2012 has also been annexed as Annexure P-1. In the application, it has been prayed that the appellant be allowed to withdraw the suit and the appeal. The aforesaid application is supported by an affidavit of the appellant.
However, during the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant be allowed to withdraw the appeal as the matter has been compromised.
Ordered accordingly.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
August 22, 2013 savita
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Kadian Savita 2013.08.26 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.3677 of 2012 (O&M)
4
Kadian Savita 2013.08.26 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the withdrawal of the appeal after a compromise between the parties.
Raghbir Singh
Mukhtiar Kaur
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
