ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. Relief of refund of Rs 90,000 with interest was sought for, as an alternative to the relief of specific performance, in the event of the latter relief not being allowed. The trial court found the plaintiff not entitled to the decree of specific performance. However, a decree for refund of Rs 75,000 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation was granted. One of the findings arrived at by the trial court was that the defendant did not intend to enter into an agreement to sell the property and the agreement was in fact a transaction of loan with security created in the form of agreement to sell.

3. The defendant preferred an appeal. The High Court formed an opinion that if the agreement in question was not an agreement for sale of the property but was only intended to be a security for loan borrowed by the plaintiff from the defendant, then the question would arise whether the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree of Rs 75,000 with interest without payment of a proper court fee and in the absence of any specific finding that a decree for return of loan could be passed. In the opinion of the High Court, these aspects of the case require a fresh consideration at the hands of the trial court and after affording an opportunity of adducing additional evidence to both the parties.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this appeal by special leave.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant as also the learned counsel assigned by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to the respondent, we are satisfied that the impugned order of remand passed by the High Court cannot be sustained as it appears to us to be unnecessary and uncalled for.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that in the event of the plaintiff being found not entitled to the decree for specific performance, a money decree in the alternative was fully justified. It was further submitted that although the plaintiff had set up a specific case of there being an agreement to sell in his favour yet it was the case of the defendant that there. was a transaction of loan and even if the plea of the defendant was found to have been made out, yet a decree based on the case could have been passed in favour of the plaintiff. We find merit in the submission so made. We would like to place on record that the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant has submitted that the plaintiff does not wish to adduce any further evidence and is prepared to argue the appeal before the High Court on the pleadings, evidence and other materials already available.

7. We feel that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the life of litigation, which is already an old one. It is too technical an approach, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to hold that the plaintiff could not be allowed the relief of money decree in the event of it being found that he had advanced a loan to the defendant and that was not repaid. So also the question of payment of court fees does not arise inasmuch as the necessary court fees on the alternate relief of money decree has already been paid by the plaintiff. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the appeal is heard and finally decided by the High Court itself.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order of remand passed by the High Court is set aside. The High Court shall rehear the appeal on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and other materials available on record and grant such relief to which the parties may be found entitled. If the High Court finds that the transaction was not one of agreement to sell but of loan and security for repayment, then a decree for refund of such amount as was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant and had remained unpaid may be passed with such interest as to which the plaintiff may be found entitled.

9. The appeal stand