JUDGMENT

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. -This first appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against judgment/ decree dated 23.08.2007 passed by District Judge, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 2- A/2006, wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for specific performance of contract for the land recorded in Civil Station Sheet No. 1, Plot No. 2, area admeasuring 294 sq.mtr. or 3162 sq.ft and ordered that the respondent/ plaintiff shall pay Rs. 85,000/- to the appellant and again, to pay compound interest @ 12% from February, 1998 for execution of sale-deed in his favour. The cost of execution of the sale-deed shall be borne by the respondent.

2. As per the appellant, the parties entered into an agreement on 18.06.1997 (Ex. P/1) for selling the suit property as mentioned above and the respondent/ plaintiff paid Rs. 5,000/- in advance on the date of execution of the agreement. The property was agreed to sell for a cash consideration of Rs. 90,000/- and it is mentioned in the agreement that the remaining amount is to be paid in the month of January, 1998. The possession of the land was handed over to the respondent on the date of agreement and the respondent started his business in the said land after opening an engineering workshop. It is alleged on behalf of the respondent that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the appellant did not perform her part of contract and cancelled the contract by notice dated 10.02.2003 (Ex.P/2) that is why the suit was filed by the respondent which was decreed by the trial court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:-

(i) The date of agreement is 18.06.1997. The sale-deed was to be executed upto January, 1998, therefore, the suit filed on 28.04.2003 is not within limitation.

(ii) The trial court erred in holding that the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of contract because the suit was filed only after notice served by the appellant regarding cancellation of the agreement.

(iii) The trial court overlooked the statement of appellant and other witnesses, therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the matter of Venkappa Gurappa Hosur Vs. Kasawwa, c/o Rangappa Kulgod, (1997) AIR SC 2630 , Gyaneshwar Vs. Smt. Moongabai @ Muneshwaribai & another, (2006) 1 MPHT 287 , Smt. Nakubai Valu Dhokane (deceased by L.Rs.) Vs. Bhagwansingh Prakash Chandra,2009 AIR Noc 385 (Bom.), Ammilal & another Vs. Kamla Bai, (2010) 2 MPHT 301 & Rathnavathi & another Vs. Kavita Ganeshamdas,2015 SAR(Civil) 130 .

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent filed crossobjection/ appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, submits as under:-

(i) The land was handed over to the respondent on the date of agreement and he is running the engineering workshop in the said land and earning livelihood by the same engineering workshop, therefore, the finding of the trial court is just and proper.

(ii) The appellant moved an application to the Electricity Department for cutting the electricity of the respondent's workshop and due to disconnection, the respondent is not able to run the engineering workshop.

(iii) The cross-objection is filed for reversing the decree of compound interest @ 12% because the respondent is nowhere at fault, therefore, the interest cannot be imposed on him. The rest of the finding of the trial court is not liable to be interfered with invoking jurisdiction of appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record in which judgment and decree has been passed.

7. First question for consideration before this Court is whether the respondent was willing to perform his part of contract. From pleading and evidence adduced before the trial court, it is clearly established that both the parties entered into an agreement on 18.06.1