2025:CGHC:44320-DB AFR HARNEET HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KAUR HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.02 First Appeal No. 225 of 2016

17:43:30 +0530 Ayodhya Prasad S/o Lochan Prasad Chaudhary, Aged About 46 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village Singhanpur, Tahsil Basana, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh … Appellant/Defendant versus Kamal Kumar S/o Jwala Prasad Mahant, Aged About 34 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Sangitrai, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

… Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellant :Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent :Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate As Amicus Curiae :Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate.

DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board

01.0 9 .202 5 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Appellant/Defendant has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 11/05/2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge Saraipali, District Mahasamund in Civil Suit No. 03-A/2015 whereby plaintiff’s suit has been decreed to the extent of directing the appellant/defendant to refund the sale consideration amount of Rs. 16,20,000/-

with interest to the respondent/plaintiff.

(For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.)

2. An agreement to sale was executed between the plaintiff and defendant on 12/07/2011 for the sale of suit land shown in Schedule A annexed with the plaint situated at Village Singhanpur, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, originally owned by the defendant to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,25,000/- out of which, Rs. 9,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as interim amount and subject to demarcation, sale deed was to be executed. Thereafter, on 10/01/2012 and 15/02/2012, Rs. 2,20,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant which totals to Rs. 16,20,000/-, however, the defendant remained unabiding towards the execution of the sale deed which led to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract, possession and for other consequential reliefs.

3. Defendant filed his written statement opposing the plaint averments stating inter alia that from 12/07/2011 to 27/08/2012, he had contacted the plaintiff several times and asked him to pay the remaining sale consideration and get the sale deed executed but the plaintiff refused after which defendant also served a notice to the plaintiff on 17/08/2012 but then again plaintiff failed to pay the remaining amount and get the sale deed executed. He has further stated that apart from the interim amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-, plaintiff has not paid any money to the defendant and as such, plaintiff’s suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned trial Court framed 6 issues and answered them as stated below :-

5. In sum and substance, the trial Court, though recorded findings and answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff, but declined to grant decree for specific performance of contract and only granted decree for refund of sale consideration of Rs. 16,20,000/- with interest of 6% per annum to the plaintiff, however, the said relief was not sought by the plaintiff and during the pendency of this first appeal, plaintiff has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC read with Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter “the Act of 1963”) seeking amendment in the plaint.

6. Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant, would submit that in absence of relief of refund of sale consideration sought by the plaintiff, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in granting decree of refund of sale consideration of Rs. 16,20,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and at this stage, the application filed by the pl