Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Amit Rawal, J. dismissed an appeal against the decree of the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell.

Factual matrix of the case was, respondent-plaintiff alleged that appellant-defendant after mutual decision extended the date for the performance of the agreement, but on the date decided to perform the defendant did not come forward. Subsequently, plaintiff sent a legal notice and filed a suit when the defendant failed to reply to notice. Contention of the appellant was he never entered into an agreement with the plaintiff.

Deepender Ahlawat, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that readiness and willingness on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff was conspicuously wanting. No documents in this regard were placed on record. Even if the agreement to sell was denied, extensions were also the testimony of the same.

Learned counsel for the respondent, submitted various pieces of evidence and witnesses to prove his case that the appellant had entered into alleged agreement to sell and a copy of the impugned notice was also presented before the Court.

The Court observed that such arguments were not sustained for the simple reason that if a person who has denied the agreement to sell cannot be permitted to take the plea of readiness and willingness particularly when extensions and earnest money had been proved on record. The Court held, “As an upshot of my findings, there is no illegality and perversity in the concurrent findings of fact and law to form a different opinion than the one arrived at by the Courts below.” Hence, there were no merits in the appeal found by the Court.[Balwan Singh Raghav v. Dalip Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 709, decided on 24-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court:  Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. allowed the application for the refund of the fees on the ground that the matter was resolved between the parties.

An appeal was filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad where the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that the appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal which was filed for the specific performance as the dispute between the parties had been resolved amicably.The applicant/appellant further prayed for the refund of the court fee.  Reliance was placed upon the decision of Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Sreeramaiah v. South Indian Bank Ltd., 2006 SCC Online Kar 563 in which it was held that the matter being resolved by the parties amicably, amongst themselves without the intervention of the court, the court fees should be refunded.

In the above-mentioned case, the court held that the object behind Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is to encourage the parties to arrive at the settlement. It is not important that the parties are referred to the four methods but if parties themselves at the earliest stage before the court come to the settlement, it will be considered that the object of Section 89 is achieved. The court further held that “No party should be discriminated in the matter of refund of Court Fees mainly on the ground that they have settled the dispute at the earliest stage before the court without recourse to any of the methods mentioned under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.” Thus, the court directed the refund of the court fees appended with the appeal to the appellant. [Suresh Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 660, decided on 30-5-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur J., dismissed the petition filed under Article 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, and upheld the order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge.

The respondents, in this case, were owners and in possession of the land which was situated in Beli Azmat, Jammu. They agreed to alienate the land, and in furtherance of this, an agreement to sell was entered into. The petitioners contended that despite the said agreement being in force, the respondents did not execute the sale deed, as a result of which a suit for specific performance was filed.

After the order for specific performance was passed, it was challenged by one of the respondents by a suit of declaration. The previous order for specific performance was stayed till the time that the suit for declaration was adjudicated.

Rent was being paid to the respondents by the Department of Agriculture, and the petitioners argued that the same should not be paid till the time the suit for specific performance of the sale deed was settled. The 1st Additional District Judge rejected the argument on the ground that the sale deed was obtained by collusion and that there was no valid document for transfer of title to the petitioners.

Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed contempt proceedings, claiming that even though rent was only to be paid to respondent 1 to the extent of his share, yet the rental compensation was being distributed with regard to property. The contempt proceedings were also dismissed by the 1st Additional Judge.

In the present petition, the Court held that the order given did not suffer from any illegality, as whatever rights they claimed were as a result of the suit for specific performance, which had been stayed. Consequently, the petitioners had lost all rights to question the dispensation of rental compensation to the respondents. [Bansi Lal v. Vijay Chand Katoch,2018 SCC OnLine J&K 802, Order dated 03-11-2018]