Delay in filing a suit for specific performance is not the sole ground to deny the relief if the plaintiff proves continuous readiness and willingness and has paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration.

Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No

Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes

RSA No.2205 of 2015 (O&M)

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

CM No.5747-C of 2015

This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 315 days in re-filing the present appeal. For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of 315 days in re-filing the present appeal, is hereby condoned.

CM No.5746-C of 2015

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 71 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of 71 days in filing the present appeal, is hereby condoned.

CM No.5745-C of 2015

This is an application filed under Section 149 CPC seeking permission for making good the deficiency in the Court Fee. In view of the fact that the applicant/appellant has made deficiency in the Court Fee good, the application has been rendered infructuous. The delay in furnishing Court Fee is ordered to be condoned. Application stands disposed off.

RSA No.2205 of 2015

Defendant is in second appeal.

2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of the First Instance, i.e., the appellant as 'defendant' and the respondent as 'plaintiff'.

3. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.10.2004.

3.2. As per the plaintiff, defendant agreed to sell land measuring 4 Kanal 17 Marlas in his favour for a total sale consideration of 4,85,000/- i.e., @ 8,00,000/- per acre vide agreement to sell dated 21.10.2004. On the date when agreement to sell was executed, plaintiff paid earnest money of 3,00,000/-. Remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The parties agreed to get the same registered on or before 25.04.2005. Plaintiff claims that he remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on 25.04.2005 with the balance sale consideration. However, defendant failed to turn up. Legal notice dated 29.10.2005 was served upon defendant by way of registered A.D. Defendant having failed to respond to the same, plaintiff instituted present suit seeking decree of specific performance, on 12.06.2007. In the alternative, the plaintiff seeks a decree for recovery of 6,00,000/-, i.e., double the amount of earnest money along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of execution of agreement to sell till the date of actual realization.

4. Suit was contested by the defendant.

4.1. Defendant denied execution of agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff and receipt of earnest money. Defendant claims that the agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff was a result of a fraudulent act. Defendant is an agriculturist and the plaintiff being an influential person has fraudulently prepared agreement to sell.

5. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of the First Instance, framing following Issues:

“1. Whether the agreement to sel