Dismissed

Naib Singh etc. v. Gagan Gopal & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2018RSA/236/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the pleas challenging the lower courts' decree for refund of earnest money. Upholding concurrent findings of fact relying on an affidavit sworn by the plaintiffs, the court held them ready and willing to perform and found no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Regular second appeal dismissed; lower courts' decree for refund of earnest money, interest and costs affirmed.

Naib Singh etc. Vs Gagan Gopal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.236 of 2014 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.236 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Order: 11.12.2018

¶5

Naib Singh and others

¶6

..Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gagan Gopal and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶12

Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

¶14

On 20.01.2014, learned counsel appearing for the appellant had

¶15

made following submissions which prompted the Judge to issue notice of motion. The order is extracted as under:-

¶16

“ Learned counsel for the appellants submits that along with the appeal an application under Order 41 rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC was moved by the appellants, however, without passing any order on the application, appeal has been dismissed. He further contends that no separate order, accepting or rejecting the application, has been passed.

¶17

Notice of motion for 22.3.2014.”

¶18

It is undisputed that the aforesaid contention was factually

¶19

incorrect as the first appellate court had decided the application for additional evidence on 13.11.2003.

¶20

NARESH KUMAR 2018.12.17 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

RSA No.236 of 2014 (O&M) -2-

¶22

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments in the main appeal has been heard at length.

¶23

Defendants-appellants are in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below while decreeing refund of earnest money along with interest @ 9% from the date of agreement to sell till filing of the suit and pendente lite and future interest @ 6% till realization.

¶24

There was an agreement to sell between the parties dated 03.06.2005, which recorded that an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- had been paid as earnest money. The agreement to sell was with respect to land measuring 12 bighas and 16 biswas. Thereafter, the date for execution and registration of the sale deed which was originally fixed for 01.12.2005, was extended to 21.12.2005 when the plaintiffs visited the office of Sub-Registrar and since defendants did not turn up, therefore, got his presence marked. Thereafter, defendants sold the property in dispute vide sale deed dated 01.02.2006.

¶25

Both the courts after appreciating the evidence have decreed the suit qua refund of the earnest money as noticed above.

¶26

This court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the judgments passed by both the courts below.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and therefore, the earnest money could not be ordered to be refunded.

¶28

This court has considered the submission in the light of findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and found that both the courts have rightly concluded that plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform

¶29

NARESH KUMAR 2018.12.17 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

-3-

¶31

RSA No.236 of 2014 (O&M)

¶32

their part of the contract as they even visited the office of Sub-Registrar on the extended target date i.e. 21.12.2005 and got attested an affidavit wherein it was specifically sworn in that plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and have brought the balance sale consideration. Hence, there is no substance in argument of learned counsel for the appellants.

¶33

Keeping in view the aforesaid findings of fact and the evidence on record, this court does not find any good ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below, the regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶34

December 11, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶35

NARESH KUMAR 2018.12.17 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Naib Singh etc. v. Gagan Gopal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naib Singh etc. v. Gagan Gopal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation Faridabad

Inder Singh etc. Vs Hatti Singh & Ors.

Suksham Lata @ Kusum Lata & Anr. Vs Jagdish Ram

Balbir Singh and Ors. Vs Kewal Krishan and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Vs Zile Singh and Others

Kewal Krishan Vs Roshan Lal & Ors.